Nelson 1
Candace Nelson
February 2, 2011
English 303 – Multimedia Writing
Reflection 2
Word Count: 1,021
Anonymous Comments:
News sites must strike a balance between communication and moderation
The web offers an endless source of information and is a marketplace for a free
exchange of ideas and comments. It’s this open interface that provides a catch-22 for the
news industry because while encouraging, and oftentimes soliciting, user feedback on
their websites, vulgar and blasphemous comments flow through unfiltered, causing
tension for not only the author, but also for the community of fellow commentors. News
sites are currently faced with the dilemma of balancing an open forum for discussion with
implementing reasonable discretion. News sites have initiated a move toward requiring
commentors to register on their site in hopes of deterring those who post vulgar and
demeaning comments on a site’s user feedback section and promoting users who are
actively engaging with the news content – a move that many news sites are considering in
order to create an atmosphere conducive to communication.
News sites, such as the New York Times, CNN and National Public Radio, have
an area, generally located toward the bottom of a web page, designated for user feedback.
This area varies as far as publishing: some news sites allow user comments to flow
Nelson 2
unfiltered, some are flagged if they contain certain words or phrases and await approval
by an administrator, some can hold all comments until approved by an administrator, and,
finally, some require users to register with the website in order to post any comment
(Gsell 16). These various methods of comment publication affect readers, as well as those
commenting and producing the writing.
Newspaper journalists are generally held to strict guidelines: no anonymous
sources, required attribution and at least two qualified sources. Even letters to the editor
and guest columns are held to certain standards: name, title and community standing.
However, public feedback in the online world is a double-standard (Scholz 39). News
industries strive to uphold the best standards of journalism and ethics codes, but the
attitude toward monitoring comments is generally more lax. Rem Rieder, the American
Journalism Review editor and vice president said, “The opportunity to launch brutal
assaults from the safety of a computer without attaching a name does wonders for the
bravery levels of the angry.” Rieder references Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts
stating anonymous online forums “have become havens for a level of crudity, bigotry,
meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety” (2).
People are allowed to hide behind a veil of anonymity and can hurl insults because their
personal reputation is not being tarnished. Instead, “anonymous” appears next to the
comment without any responsibility issued. It is irresponsible, in a journalistic sense, to
not hold people accountable, whether that be in person, in print, or on the web.
Requiring users to register with the news site is one safeguard that could combat
potential inappropriate comments. According to David Feld, vice president of interactive
media at South Carolina’s Hilton Hotel Island Packet, “Registration acts as a speed bump
Nelson 3
that will slow down those who want to wreak havoc on the site” (Gsell 17). Registering
with a site ensures two main purposes: the irate user is slowed down and, thus, more
likely to have cooled off, and there is an identity attached to the commenter. Many
commentors feel safe knowing their words are not attached to their real-life personas;
however, by requiring users to create a username and password, they are committed to
that site, even if the commitment is minimal.
While requiring users to register on news sites before commenting may decrease
the amount of insulting and crass comments, registering may also cut down on comments
all together – something news sites are grappling with currently. Ashley Kissinger, a
partner in the Denver office of Levine Sullivan Kock and Schulz, L.L.P., said:
“The view protecting the right to speak anonymously as important for both
normative and practical reasons. Anonymous commentary – both online and off –
is credited with identifying solutions for political, social, and cultural challenges;
promoting unconventional ideas; and catalyzing community development and
transformation. The vitality such speech brings to online forums can increase
online readership. Advocacy in this arena can protect that growing readership and
new digital revenue streams as well. And the media are obviously well equipped
to articulate and advance the posters’ speech rights” (1).
The user feedback section is created to engage with readers and elicit conversation about
the news content; abolishing any comments is worrisome because it seems to be
counterproductive. News sites aim to make their sites easy for people to participate, and
Nelson 4
anonymity allows users to feel less inhibited when they comment (Gsell 16). Raleigh’s
News & Observer senior online editor Dan Barkin said their blog comments have
remained steady after requiring registration. Visitors’ passion for the topics makes them
willing to jump through a few hoops in order to participate, Barkin said (Gsell 16).
Requiring registration may, in fact, focus the comments and eliminate the waste.
It’s this balance that needs to find its place in news sites’ user feedback sections.
Gsell said “At its best, the removal of inhibitions can lead to a lively but civil exchange
of ideas. At its worst, it can mean profanity, and sites are loath to alienate potential
community members, tarnishing their brands in the process” (16). While news sites need
to maintain the open flow of communication, they also need to assure the conversation is
civil and promotes dialogue – not inhibit commentors. Requiring registration is one
method of preventing insulting comments while still encouraging debate that has seen
some success. Registration can prevent insulting comments by slowing down the user and
by attaching an identity to the user. It could also be seen as prohibiting comments from
flowing to the site; but, its effects have been mostly positive. Those who have enforced a
registration-before-comment process have maintained their comment rates but have rid
the section of insensitive and offensive remarks. This potential solution has few
drawbacks, but many advantages. To keep dialogue flowing in a positive manner,
registration is essential to the evolution of journalism on the web. The balance between
promoting and inhibiting comments is what will propel the dialogue into a cooperative
and contributory conversation amongst all users.
Nelson 5
Works Cited
Gsell, Lindsay. “Comments Anonymous.” American Journalism Review. 31.1. (2009):
16-17. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCOhost. Wise Library,
Morgantown, West Virginia. February 2011. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=36530833&site=ehost-live>.
Kissinger, Ashley and Katharine Larsen. “Shielding Jane and John: Can the Media
Protect Anonymous Online Speech?” Communications Lawyer. 26.3. (2009): 442. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCOhost. Wise Library,
Morgantown, West Virginia. February 2011. < http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=43694754&site=ehost-live>.
Rieder, Rem. “No Comment.” American Journalism Review. 32.2. (2010): 2.
Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCOhost. Wise Library,
Morgantown, West Virginia. February 2011. < http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=51607473&site=ehost-live>.
Scholz, Andy. “Anonymous Web Posts Should be Curtailed.” Quill. 95.6. (2007): 39.
Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCOhost. Wise Library,
Morgantown, West Virginia. Web. February 2011. <http://search.ebscohost.com
/login. aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=26051493&site=ehost-live>.