Posted on 08/19/2014 7:44:13 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Anonymous comments, even positive ones, damage trust in the news media.
Despite their ubiquity on news sites around the Internet, a movement against anonymous comments sections has slowly gathered steam over the past few years. The first call to action came in 2010 when the American Journalism Review said, “It is time for news sites to stop allowing anonymous online comments.” Since that bold declaration, a wide variety of media outlets, including ESPN, the Huffington Post, Popular Science, Sporting News and USA Today have either banned anonymous posts on their sites or eliminated comments sections altogether.
In August 2013, the New York state legislature even debated an ambitious bill that would have required all Web site administrators to pull down anonymous comments from “social networks, blogs forums, message boards or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.”
This “no anonymity” movement is motivated by two assumptions. First, when Internet users are allowed to post their thoughts anonymously, online discussions inevitably deteriorate into uncivil flame wars. The idea that anonymity can breed negativity is, of course, not new. Indeed, Godwin’s Law, which states that as anonymous “discussions grow longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1” was first articulated in 1990.
More recent assessments of anonymous comments sections have not been more complimentary. In 2010, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts argued that anonymous comments sections “have become havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness, factual inaccuracy and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Here I thought it was biased and incompetent reporting that damaged trust in the news media. Silly me!
ROTFL!!! That's some funny stuff.
King George had similar complaints about anonymous pamphlets circa 1775.
Tyrants like to be able to single out enemies for prosecution (e.g., like the corrupt DA in Travis County).
The media will not tolerate dissent.
“Anonymous comments, even positive ones, damage trust in the news media.”
“Here I thought it was biased and incompetent reporting that damaged trust in the news media. Silly me!”
*********************
+1
Until then, they can KMA.
But they are more than happy to keep using anonymous sources. Whatever.
Let me guess,
American Journalism Review did not find fault with journ0lists’ and their drivels? That they don’t damage their own brand?
What a bunch of Nazi’s the media has become. ;)
This would have been more amusing as an unsigned editorial.
They don’t want anyone challenging their biased and incompetent reporting.
I wonder if X, Y and Z would agree?....................
I see more than enough idiocy from comments tied to people’s personal accounts. I don’t think it matter if it’s anonymous or not. People are definitely not afraid to look the fool these days.
>>> banning comment sections altogether
Ah, silly me.
“SMALL PEOPLE” don’t speak truth to power, it is only accredited Journ0Lists who do.
No anonymous comments? Then no anonymous sources for the media!
However, instead of simply requiring people to use their real names in order to join their comment section, the powers that be at the paper decided to require Facebook membership (with, presumably, ones own name?) as a prerequisite for posting comments.
I have not been on their web-site since the day the policy was enacted.
Anonymous pamphleteering goes way back to the American Revolution and before. It has an honorable tradition and there is a reason to be anonymous sometimes. All depends on the situation.
____________________
Forbes magazine:
The First Amendment right to freedom of expression extends to anonymous expression. “Under our Constitution,” wrote the Supreme Court in 1995, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2014/02/07/when-should-the-authors-of-anonymous-online-reviews-be-revealed-yelp-challenges-a-court-unmasking-order/
Excellent!
News flash for ya Kevin and Melinda - it’s the lying, cheating, underhanded, race-baiting, gender-dividing, misleading, incomplete reporting of your own kind that’s the problem.
Assuming you’re correct that this ‘movement’ is gaining steam withing the journalistic ranks, tells me you’re losing credibility and paying customers at a high rate of speed.
Typical leftists - never see themselves as the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.