creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Connie Schultz icon
Connie Schultz
23 May 2012
Catholic Leaders Must Dial Down the Rhetoric

As a non-Catholic, I wrestled with an internal conflict over the birth control battle of the bishops. Part of … Read More.

16 May 2012
Dear Young Mothers: Ignore Time Magazine

In February 1989, I ended a phone interview for a magazine story I was writing and looked up to find my 21-month-… Read More.

9 May 2012
Finally, the President Says 'I Do'

This was going to be a different kind of column. My friend Jackie, through a mutual contact, arranged for me … Read More.

Newspapers Should Start Naming Names

Share Comment

I look forward to the day when news organizations start to ban anonymous comments on their Web sites.

Maybe that's the foolish optimist in me, but I want to believe that we will finally admit — to ourselves and to the public at large — that allowing people to hide behind anonymity has not been good for our industry, our culture or our country.

This past week, Susan Goldberg — editor of The Plain Dealer, where I work — decided to reveal the e-mail address behind dozens of anonymous comments posted on our Web site, Cleveland.com, under the alias "lawmiss." This same person, who has weighed in on criminal cases in the past, posted a comment assailing the mental state of a reporter's relative, which violated our policy against personal attacks. An online editor used Web software to look up the e-mail address of "lawmiss" and discovered it was the same as the personal AOL account of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold. The judge has been the focus of considerable scrutiny in our newspaper. Earlier this month, she threatened to throw another Plain Dealer reporter in jail for refusing to divulge a source.

Saffold denied posting any comments. Her 23-year-old daughter said she posted a few comments using her mother's e-mail. Saffold's daughter attended the same high school as my daughter; I was her softball coach in the late 1990s. My heart sank at this news. We don't know whether she's the real culprit behind the comments, which included references to two death penalty cases in Saffold's courtroom. We do know her mother was willing to let her take the blame.

"Never," the judge told The Plain Dealer. "I have not. My daughter may have, but I have not."

Though these circumstances throw us into choppy waters of our own making, I support Goldberg's decision to disclose the judge's potential tie to the comments. "What if it ever came to light that someone using the e-mail of a sitting judge made comments on a public Web site about cases she was hearing and we did not disclose it?" Goldberg told Plain Dealer reporter Henry Gomez. "These are capital crimes and life-and-death issues for these defendants. I think not to disclose this would be a violation of our mission and damaging to our credibility as a news organization."

Most news organizations allow anonymous comments on their Web sites. Many, if not most, journalists oppose the practice.

Some of us deplore the hypocrisy of requiring that letters to the editor have verifiable identities, addresses and phone numbers while allowing anyone with a keyboard and an e-mail address to post the kind of stuff they never would say if they had to provide their names. It makes for many an ugly day, discouraging thoughtful discussions and repelling readers who don't have the stomach for the daily dose of vitriol. The Plain Dealer's John Kroll leads the heroic effort to keep the site civil, but it's an ongoing challenge.

Some argue that allowing anonymity is a way of outing the bigots among us. But reading multiple posts, often by the same person using a variety of identities, amplifies voices and exaggerates numbers. The haters are small in number, but they are tenacious, and the resulting echo chamber fuels a growing climate of fear and rage born of false impressions.

I've made no secret of my disdain for this kind of forum. There are columns I no longer write because I won't subject vulnerable people who never have been interviewed before to the online attacks of anonymous trolls. I learned that the hard way after the daughter of an out-of-work factory worker who killed himself called me sobbing because of anonymous comments attacking her father's faith, courage and integrity.

"You never told me people would say those things about my father," she cried. "My mother says she'll never talk to me again."

In the past year, I've experimented with an alternative online discussion board on Facebook. I post links to my columns and other stories, offer opinions or ask questions, and spirited discussions unfold. Everyone has an identity, which is easy to confirm using online sources. Most post photos of themselves and pictures of their friends and families. I know only about 20 percent of my Facebook "friends," who represent a wide range of political views, economic backgrounds and professions, but over time we have built a virtual community.

A not-so-amazing thing happens when people feel safe: They start to speak their minds. Dozens, mostly women, tell me they never have expressed their opinions so publicly before.

I'm not saying we've figured out the model for newspapers. Facebook is a small, easily managed group compared with the public at large. But I do think we're onto something.

And I know that this "something" starts with a name.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and the author of two books from Random House, "Life Happens" and "... and His Lovely Wife." She is a featured contributor in a recently released book by Bloomsbury, "The Speech: Race and Barack Obama's 'A More Perfect Union.'" To find out more about Connie Schultz (cschultz@plaind.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Connie,
I saw this coming from the first time I read one of you columns on PD. I have been stunned by what has occurred over and over in the comments to what you have written. It is like entering as war zone. The general level of discourse in the comments is so divorced from reality that I have to leave from time to time just to recover any sense of the real way society is structured.
Many have tried to inject a sense of responsibility but it it is just overwhelming. I have communicated this on various occasions and I am happy to see that PD is moving to correct the problem.
Jim Grissom
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jim Grissom
Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:15 PM
Connie. Connie. Connie. Whatever happened to "protecting sources"? Journalists? fly with every irresponsible nut-job idea, whether true or false, and hide behind The First Amendment as defined by various Supreme Court decisions. Facebook would be the next in line to fall.
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Henricks
Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:18 AM
It just occurred to me that my local paper will not print your letter without a name and a zip code but you can post anonymously on the paper's website. Hmmmm.
Comment: #3
Posted by: capiscan
Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:51 AM
I agree, but I think that there's a better approach. Treat anonymous comments differently -- but them into a "junk comment" area, and state at the top of each post something like "this person refuses to provide a valid identity, therefore everything said should be treated as suspect and could be the result of paid posting." Or something of the sort. Valid comments from real people (i.e. confirmed like newspapers confirm letters to the editor) should be posted as REAL comments. Needless to say, I'm posting this under my real name and I am, incidentally, originally from Cleveland (Parma Heights, actually).
Comment: #4
Posted by: Geoffrey James
Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:47 PM
I don't understand why anyone would even pay attention to an anonymous comment. Yes, anonmyous posters (and anyone else) can be outright mean, cruel, prejudicial, even criminal in their comments, but this is the internet. If you don't realize that when it says "anonymous" or "intusr15" it means that person could be anyone and no one, you may need to rethink your web browsing activities. If someone is saying something that is incomprehensible, just ignore them. At least they aren't physically in your face spewing their hate speech.

Connie talks about how safe the people in her virtual community feel and how they express themselves more freely. However, I argue that anonymity provides the same level of comfort. Not for the hate speech, but for those expressing a dissenting opinion in general. For some, seeing their opinion in writing, without being tied to that opinion in a harmful way, is beneficial. Imagine if your boss frequented the same sites and had the exact opposite opinion, it would create a strained workplace to be sure. If you both post anonymously, you can argue your opinions without straining that real-life relationship (you can NEVER win arguments about things like religion or politics anyway, which is why you don't bring them up in polite society, but the internet is anything but polite). It may seem cowardly, but its better than never expressing your opinion at all.

I agree that anything that may be illegal or inproper (such as a judge commenting on her own cases) should definately be exposed to the authorities (posting their identity online may be over the line). However, the "anonymous" option, in the proper context, can bring much more insight into a discussion.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Nathan H.
Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:53 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Connie Schultz
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

20 Jul 2007 Three Times the Life Lessons Come With Playboy Triplets

17 Sep 2008 RSVP -- This Means You

13 Apr 2008 Guantanamo's Only Justice Is Poetic