Moderating Comments
Jessica McBride has penned what I believe to be another unfortunate column that has its roots in her current personal issues. But she addresses some things that are pertinent to this medium, so I thought I would address them.
This is a challenge to some mainstream media organizations: Stop embracing the darkest corners of the Internet on your own sites. It denigrates you. It should make Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow cringe in their graves.
I’m talking about the mainstream news sites (like that run by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) that allow endless, poorly moderated (if at all) comment threads on their stories, which are filled with anonymous haters uttering abusive, vile sexist (and other) slurs.
News organizations allow outright sexist slurs, name-calling, and libelous falsehoods on their sites, but they would never allow outright racist slurs to be posted. They all ran stories about Don Imus’ disgusting sexist and racist slurs against young female basketball players, yet the postings they allow on their own sites are often just as bad. They need to own them, even if they didn’t write them. They’re giving space to them and introducing their readers to them.
I disagree. As readers of this blog know, we do not moderate comments. Never have. Never will. We have, on rare occasion, deleted comments that were threatening or possibly libelous, but in general, you can comment whatever you want. We have had law enforcement look into our comments from time to time. It’s all a matter of personal responsibility. I’m responsible for what I write. You are responsible for what you write. If you threaten someone or commit libel in the comments of a blog, you may be held accountable for it. Just ask James Buss. I have always viewed our comment section as a conversation. Some folks are jerks. That’s life.
The Internet is, in many ways, a sexist environment. Most of the citizen blog sites are run by older men without journalistic training or standards and, when a woman crashes into the parlor to join the political talk over the brandy, watch out – you’ll get harassed until you voluntarily leave the room. But I expect more of sites like jsonline.
All prominent females have been a target of this Internet hate, especially when they’re pundits or just in the public eye (although it’s hard to think of many in this state). Bo Black was prominent here before the Internet; the sexist treatment she got from the mainstream media (no one writes about Don Smiley’s salary endlessly) was perhaps somewhat comparable and a precursor of what was to come.
I debate strongly and have a sarcastic voice (I was raised with vigorous political debate over the dinner table). I am not a victim here, nor hardly alone; I am simply critiquing an Internet culture that is misogynistic. I am calling for standards. Hey, I guess it means one’s relevant.
Again, I disagree, but I will defer to the ladies. The internet can be a rather brutal place because people tend to suspend their normal filters of decorum and write things that they would never say in public. But I don’t think it’s particularly misogynistic. I have been called just about every derogatory thing possible in various places, but I don’t interpret it as somehow related to my gender. At the same time, Ann Althouse and other prominent lady bloggers appear to be taken largely on their merits - as they should be - except for the occasional troll. McBride has taken some harsh criticism, some of it fair and some of it not, but it seems to be related more to her own behavior than to her gender. But again, I’ll defer to our lady readers…
This part I just found funny:
I was an early champion of the citizen media. I had one of the first political blogs in this state by a woman.
I disbanded it when I had enough. Enough of the vicious comments about my marriage, my appearance, and even my children. Enough of being called sexist slurs so vile I can’t possibly print them in a family newspaper. I was called the “c” word and people wrote that I should be “b-tch slapped.” That’s just for starters. I had enough with the libelous falsehoods that were written, without evidence, as fact.
[...]
Oh, one other thing: I might reactivate my blog soon. As anyone who knows me knows, I don’t silence easily, and certainly not through intimidation from Internet bullies.
Um, yeah, you do. You just said that you quit your blog because of the “internet bullies.”
Over the years, I stopped reading blogs (save for a few that are intellectual discussions). And I’ve told some public officials I know not to read them, either. It’s batting in the wind. It’s easy to mistakenly think they are representative of public opinion when they are the same 200 readers moving from blog to blog. You can’t control the dark recesses of the Internet, so don’t spend your energy trying.
I actually agree with her a bit here. Many of the blogs out there are designed as hate blogs and should be ignored. Some blogs are quality reads. In general, it’s up to the reader to filter through the crap to find the stuff worthy of note. Politicians would be fools to completely ignore the blogosphere, but they do need to put it in perspective.
While there are too many renegade citizen blogs to corral, mainstream media outlets have a responsibility, I believe, not to allow comment threads on their sites that mimic them. I am stunned by the vile sexist slurs that I’ve seen on those comment threads this week. I wonder why sexism is tolerated by media outlets more than racism would be tolerated.
Mainstream media: Don’t allow the standardless environment of the Web to change your own standards. If you wouldn’t print it in a newspaper, don’t print it on your newspaper’s Web site, even as a citizen comment.
I’m disturbed by her statement about corralling blogs. It’s not a matter of whether or not it’s possible. It shouldn’t even be considered. Free speech and whatnot.
But again I disagree with the overall premise. We are each responsible for our own words and whether those words are spoken in a tavern or at a convention or on the steps of City Hall or on the internet, the principle is the same. Some folks may want to moderate comments for whatever reason and it is certainly their right to do so since it is their site, but there certainly isn’t any obligation to do so.
Ms. McBride’s problem is that she doesn’t approach the topic with clean hands. She has made a career out of mocking people she doesn’t agree with. This works as long as you are blemish-free. Alas, for her, she isn’t.
Why do people have so much fun poking at Charles Sykes? He pontificates on topics where he doesn’t meet the standards which he purports to uphold. Take his bloviating about the new Archbishop, who he hopes will take off after local Catholic politicians who don’t toe the party line on abortion. Charles obeys the edict on abortion but has abandoned two wives and married a third—which violates a different Church edict.
Glass houses, folks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2009 at 1431 hrs
Agree and disagree…
While I agree that one is certainly open to criticism if one has engaged in behavior that one condemns, but it doesn’t necessarily invalidate the opinion. For example, a former alcoholic might have valuable input into the issue of addiction, even if he/she relapses. The former arsonist might have great insight into the mind of the criminal. In truth, we are all tainted (I certainly am) and one must evaluate the person an the commentary in the whole.
Posted by Owen on November 28, 2009 at 1446 hrs
While I don’t understand Rational Observer’s strange obsession with Charlie Sykes and his marriages, Jessica McBride is getting real old, real fast.
Everyone (I hope) can see her for the sanctimonious blowhard that she is, this ridiculous thrashing she is doing to stay relevant is just plain threadbare. I wish she would stop, and go away for the sake of the kid. What she and the Chief did was wrong, what Paul Bucher has done is wrong. Now all of them should go away and let everyone move on….
In the grand scheme of things we have got far more to be concerned over, than the marriages of a former US attorney and the Chief of police.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2009 at 1602 hrs
Michael Gerson has some similar comments, though not so acidic in WSJ. Essentially, he blames the blogs. As with McBride, he misses the point. The MSM has had a bias against certain things for about 50 years (at least). Whether war, tax cuts, healthcare, (alleged) AGW or nuclear power, it’s easy to find a majority of the MSM in lock-step…usually with the Left. The blogs are largely a response to the medias failures, not the other way around.
Posted by Steve on November 28, 2009 at 1803 hrs
As one who endured Ms. McBride’s backhanded banter, I’ll gently remind her that she’d better be able to eat what she dishes. Geez, Jess. It’s tough being a woman in the blogging world, but some of us stick it out, lawsuits and all. And most of us keep our pants on in mixed company.
Posted by Cindy on November 28, 2009 at 1849 hrs
The blogs are largely a response to the medias failures, not the other way around.
This is a great statement and I fully concur. I also do not agree with McBride’s statement regarding “the same 200 readers moving from blog to blog” as if she is trying to downplay the powerful resource blogging has become to those seeking something other than leftist rhetoric.
As for hate blogs, they are not only a waste of one’s time, but indicate ignorance and just plain insecurity on the writer’s part.
Since you are deferring some opinion to the ladies, I would have to ditto your comment
I have been called just about every derogatory thing possible in various places, but I don’t interpret it as somehow related to my gender.
Generally, it is an issue of disagreement. Those who slander and name-call just don’t have the ability to write anything worthy of journalistic quality and/or are unable to address the real issues.
As Owen said,
Some folks are jerks, and that’s life.
Posted by GAMazy on November 28, 2009 at 1851 hrs
Owen said,
Some folks may want to moderate comments for whatever reason and it is certainly their right to do so since it is their site, but there certainly isn’t any obligation to do so.
I think that statement could have been more clear. Bloggers have every right to moderate comments on their own blog - it’s their sandbox, their rules. For the most part, that probably applies to MSM websites too. But it’s much more muddy and I think it would be an interesting debate about whether they should allow comments that would never, ever be allowed to be run in a print version.
GAMazy said,This is a great statement and I fully concur. I also do not agree with McBride’s statement regarding “the same 200 readers moving from blog to blog” as if she is trying to downplay the powerful resource blogging has become to those seeking something other than leftist rhetoric.
I think there is a point to be made, however, that it is very easy to over estimate a viewpoint on an issue because of blogging. I’ve really only fairly recently started reading a lot of the Wisconsin bloggers, and already I’m seeing a lot of overlap & the same posters making the same comments on various blogs. Sometimes with the same handle/nickname but I’ve already picked up on some that are clearly the same person with a different one. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with that (though if it intentional as a sort of astroturfing it’s at least slimy), but it certainly can result in a distorted view of things. The bottom line though, is that nobody should place any sort of real importance to the number of comments in the blogosphere. The point is it’s about the discussion - the ideas expressed in individual comments can be of great value.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2009 at 0200 hrs
Meh -
Jessica McBride is a whiny baby. If you can’t keep your pants on lady and then still put yourself out there, you had better expect the heat.
As a woman, I have found the internet - mostly commenters - to be hateful, vitriolic, partisan, etc. But it has more to do with politics than sexism. I’ve seen guys being called lying sacks of mf’ers as well as the supposedly sexist comments.
Whatever.
But to dismiss blogs altogether is fool-hardy. The blogosphere has found and covered many stories that the “MSM” would have spiked/sat on/killed. Take the ACORN stuff the NYT spiked right before the election or the CRU/global warming scandal brewing at the moment as examples.
If the “MSM” wants to gain some respect, they need to act like investigative journalists and the “check and balance” for the government again instead of being gossip pages and op-ed cheerleaders for their own agendas and opinions. Trying to silence the competition that is decimating them will just make them more irrelavent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2009 at 1310 hrs
Charles obeys the edict on abortion but has abandoned two wives and married a third—which violates a different Church edict
Evidently you think Sykes is a Roman Catholic.
Posted by dad29 on November 29, 2009 at 1409 hrs
No, dad29, I do not think that Sykes is a Roman Catholic, either practicing or lapsed. He does, however, embrace some of the Church’s teachings, but only when it suits him politically.
The impeding arrival of the new Archbishop had him almost wetting his pants, until folks started making the point on his blog that when you take up the Roman faith you must take all of it, including the prohibition against philandering. While Sykes is able to live by some of the Roman Church’s teaching, as a multiple recidivist, he is apparently congenitally incapable of living up to that part of the bargain.
Why does adultery bother me so much, some ask? I made a promise to my wife’s late father that I would remain faithful to his daughter until my last breath. That’s not a pledge that I took lightly, and our society would be much better for all of us if folks took the marital oath seriously. I’m not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination, but adultery won’t be one of my many failings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2009 at 1910 hrs
I find it fascinating that a person who spent years on the media talking about personal responsibility…......well, let’s just say her child has been taking the brunt of this from the burns at the hotel fireplace to a broken family.
But as they say, those that can’t do…..teach. So Jessie’s apparently going to keep teaching us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2009 at 1911 hrs
I have got to say what kept rolling through my head while reading the original post and all the comments I kept thinking years ago the word blog would have been equal to a letter to the newspaper.
Isn’t it amazing that in just a few years we went from actually having to hold a pen or pencil and paper. Write our thoughts down, put it in an envelope and again hand write the address and then lick a stamp. Even after all that work the chances of it making it to the editorial page was a long shot.
Now we have the internet and millions of blogs all saying what ever the writer wants to say. The everyday citizen can actually have a voice without all that hand writing, envelope finding, and stamp licking exercise. Think of all the calories I didn’t burn sitting in front of a screen and reading words from all over the world.
I’m glad I didn’t eat much for dinner I have that may less calories to figure out how to burn.Technology what a beautiful thing. Blogging and then people trying to outline what can and cannot be said. Oh gotta love it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2009 at 2113 hrs
As readers of this blog know, we do not moderate comments. Never have. Never will.
I suggest another exception - any adds (bot or otherwise).
In general I agree - free is never wart free. It’s a little too bad that your kids might google your name and come up with vulgarities from the lunatic fringe. I think this is tougher for women.Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 29, 2009 at 2226 hrs
I’m wondering which are the “hate blogs.” Are there local ones? I have my own standards, but I’m fascinated to know the opinion of others.
Also, for those who believe the blogosphere and the rise of internet self-publishing is a right-wing strike back against the liberal empire of the “MSM”—you’re on drugs.
Also, it seems to be a common belief around here that the fundamental nature of political blogging is that it is a right-wing reaction against the liberal mainstream media. This is of course no more than half the story. The other half being liberal ideas and voices finding an outlet that they do not have in the traditional media. (No, really.)
But maybe it’s self-important to think of blogs as chiefly a political phenomenon at all. The rise of self-publishing, the end run around the media gatekeepers, is far bigger than petty right/left squabbles.
Posted by scott on November 30, 2009 at 1624 hrs
Jessie…please get a psychotherapist. Think. Those of us in journalism think you may have a career, away from Milwaukee…after some training.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2009 at 2259 hrs
The scary part, lynn, is that she taught journalism. As I said before, my first and most lasting impression of her was not that she was a righty—it was that she wasn’t too bright.
Posted by scott on November 30, 2009 at 2356 hrs
Locke notes: Sometimes with the same handle/nickname but I’ve already picked up on some that are clearly the same person with a different one. Don’t call that astro-turfing that is typically referred to as “sock-puppets”. A person who uses multiple identities to make their positions/statements/posts etc appear more popular is engaged ins sock-puppetry not astroturfing.
I’ve moderated comments at Blogger Beer ‘cause I had some fool leaving completely post-unrelated insults. I was even thinking of writing a script to perform the task of deleting their comments from the moderation queue. However, I usually let them go and have only edited a couple of them.
Anyone who writes on matters political needs to understand how well reasoned and reasonable in tone your pieces are you are bound to attract people who need to jeer & jab you. I used to write letters to my local paper and for about a couple of days after publication I would cringe when answering the phone. Even anonymous letters would come in the mail. So the claim in this stream about how the act of putting pen to paper, addressing, stamping, etc makes things more reasonable is not supported by reality.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on December 02, 2009 at 0011 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 93
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:58 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).