In last week’s paper, Northfield News Publisher and Editor Sam Gett’s announced a volunteer citizen-journalist panel called Team Watchdog in a column titled: Wanna be a watchdog? Join us.
The philosophy behind Team Watchdog is simple. Community members with specific expertise partner with newspaper reporters to help us fulfill our First Amendment mission. We’re looking for people who are interested in exposing waste and corruption or just want to be part of finding better solutions. All are encouraged to apply, but experience in accounting, law and public service is especially helpful.
Our RepJ colleague Len Witt blogged about the Fort Meyers, Florida launch of a project by the same name about a year ago: Team Watchdog: Civic Journalism in Florida. Also see this Gannett story: Fort Myers’ Team Watchdog taps community expertise.
I’m delighted to see the paper engaging the citizenry more in its reporting. I’ve heard from others that they’ve had a ‘citizen advisory board’ for a while so maybe this is an evolutionary step. I don’t have any details on it but maybe our LoGroNo readers can help enlighten me? Or maybe Managing Editor Jaci Smith will post to her blog about it.
I’m on the citizen advisory board, and it’s quite an interesting -- and diverse -- group. We have some spirited conversations, as you can imagine.
Sam and Jaci are really interested in getting feedback and ideas, and they’re working hard to improve the paper and online version of it. I think the Team Watchdog will be a great addition to their efforts.
Griff: Usually a subject like this would draw some immediate comment, yet this has not.
In your expert citizen-journalist opinion (pardon me if there are others who feel they are expert and unacknowledged), why is it that there has been no interest in commenting for the last couple days?
VEEEEK-TOR, maybe some of us are out frying fish.
A while ago, MPR was going around trying, they stated, to cultivate a wider range of sources, encouraging regular folks to contact them, etc., yet I don’t see that much came of it. The Sioux Falls Argus-Leader is doing a lot of outreach lately trying to get folks involved. Community radio was and is citizen-journalism, where all sorts of folks just show up and learn radio — it’s fun to stick a mic in peoples faces and easy to get excited about local events and politics when you know your work will be on the radio. But the “wanna be a Watchdog” concept, well, as a professional watchdog (did you see the STrib today about the impending crash and burn of the Kandiyohi Midtown Eco-Burner? YESSSS!), it’s our obligation for each of us to be Watchdogs, part of “citizenship,” of the planet, that is… the newspaper is probably trying to catch up with … with… LoGroNo?
I thought the NFNews has a watchdog; his name is Rudolph the Red……….
Anne, who else is on the Nfld News citizen advisory board? I hunted around their website and searched their database but couldn’t find anything.
There are about a dozen of us, with wildly differing viewpoints, so the conversations are very interesting. Sam and Jaci put up some sample issues and we discuss everything from story content to page design and ideas for future stories. They’ve asked for feedback on everything from policies on campaign letters to the differences between identifying authors of letters to the editor and allowing screen names or anonymous identities for online comments.
It’s a great experience.
I’ve always thought it would be good for LoGroNo, Northfield.org and the News to do a series of occasional panel discussions that would share and compare your different policies and philosophies and allow feedback from readers.
Griff: Maybe you could get some of the News’s citizen advisory team to discuss, here, the problem of anonymous comments.
Obviously some of the anonymous comments on the NFNews website, that have referred back to LG comments, were posted there (NFNews) because you do not allow anonymous comments, and the person who will only comment anonymously must find an accepting public place to do so.
That would certainly be an interesting discussion given your upcoming citizen journalism project.
I’d like to comment on everything but I don’t. Having an opinion is very much discouraged in this town in subtle and not so subtle ways. People are very timid about putting their ideas down in print where they will live forever, not only about the immediate opposition that is bound to come, but also the long term, especially if you don’t tote the party line.
So, having said that, and not being afraid to loose friends, cuz I don’t have any and I have already been shunned by several different groups, I’ll put my opinion down about handicap parking downtown. There is not enough.
There are so many people who are now in need of some extra help to get
around, but I am sure pass up businesses downtown if they have to walk a
block or more to get in somewhere. I am sure the city has met the mandatory number of spaces, (or maybe not) but when I look around I
see a space at one end of one side of the busiest block in downtown and
wonder what kind of diversity loving gentle society does that sort of
planning?
Regarding the citizen advisory board, the News ran an editorial by Sam many months ago, inviting volunteers. I don’t think they had a huge expression of interest. Sam tried to find a meeting time that worked for all.
My sense of things is that it was a pretty healthy, open process. This was not Sam inviting specific people to be in the group, but an open invitation to all interested.
I had suggested the idea of forming such a board group to the previous editor and publisher because of some of the issues related to elections and public perception of the political endoresement process. I credit Sam for inviting people to be involved in that way (I don’t think the previous management had the constitution for it).
Regarding who is on the citizen panel, the volunteers who are currently on it never volunteered to have their names publicized (as you’d expect of city council people), but there are businesspeople, journalists or former journalists, a teacher, a farmer, retired people, etc. (a cross-section of the community in some ways).
We are not a formal group; there are no minutes, and I cringe at the idea of the group being quoted or cited on the editorial pages because, even if we’re something like a cross-section, we’re a very small one, and not reprenative in any strict sense.
As the meetings have gone so far, it has been a healthy give-and-take: Sam and Jackie sometimes solicit feedback regarding front pages and layout issues. There is also discussion of editorial decisions (whether certain stories should be covered, how they were covered, if coverage seemed fair, etc.). There’s an agenda, but we often stray.
Sam and Jackie get marketing feedback, and citizens get to voice their editorial-decision concerns. I don’t know if the group actually makes a difference, or if it acts more as a pressure-valve (perhaps a little of both), but it seems worth the effort. Sam and Jackie seem more aware of the importance of community feedback in some ways (with their evolving web site, too), so in general, I think it’s a good change.
I agree with Paul that it wouldn’t be appropriate to share the names or comments of the group, but feel free to have a discussion here about anonymous comments.
I comment on a few news sites and read many more. I’m not bothered at all by the nearly universal use of anonymous comments or screen names for comments. As for the News, I understand having a traditional standard for the letters to the editor and more updated approach online.
As for anonymous comments, there is so much venom in this town that I know many people who are too afraid to comment, even though they would love to do so.
I’m thrilled to have Rudolph the Red reminding our various self-appointed emperors and other royalty that they have no clothes. The people who need his name are people who want control, and are mightily perturbed that someone dare to be doing something over which they have no control.
Words are harmless, so people should lighten up and take them for what they are. If you don’t like them, ignore them.
Long live Rudolph.
I must disagree with the idea of anonymous comments which are attached to articles that have no commonality of content. Words ARE just words, but when words become public threats of physical harm that is not acceptable.
Libel is malicious, damaging, and intentionally so, and only cowards do it anonymously. Libel is dealt with by law; cowards evade the law with anonymity.
Ideas should be able to be defended with fact, rather than lies perpetuated by anonymity.
Hear, hear, Anne. Long live Rudolph.
Martha: this is not like you to be so un-analytical.
Do you recall your reaction to the anonymous act that left garbage on your front lawn on last Dec. 23rd? (date).
You expressed deep feelings of anger, sadness, violation, trepidation, etc.
So how can you support false accusations with specific names, always stated as fact, physical threats to a persons well-being, libelous statements made over and over on a public website (and the definition of libel is important here), and these comments attached to news articles in which their is no relevant subject matter?
I know you to be a much more thoughtful person, than your endorsement of Rudolph would indicate. This is beyond political POV.
Kiffi,
You infer that you have a deeper knowledge of me than you actually do. And, quite frankly you have no real knowledge of my political POV. Others have said it before on this site, anonymity is sometimes chosen because of threats to one’s personal property and self (e.g. what happened to me in December).
Regarding libel, I do not see it. Rudolph is merely reporting and repeating the facts that have been put out there by the Northfield News, the Everret Report, individual correspondence and the individual actions of elected officials.
What is troubling to me is how you and Victor could be so un-analytical. The Summa’s I knew would have decried the behavior exhibited by the Mayor over the past year.
Nonetheless, your response to my minor response to what Anne Bretts had to say supports why many either choose to say nothing or, say it behind the veil of anonymity.
Martha
Regarding Paul’s comment #12, if people cannot find a common time for a large groups of people to gather and meet, why not find two times that people could gather in two smaller groups and meet…perhaps for half the time for each meeting. This is the real nuts and bolts of interactive exchanges…flex time…sharing jobs…and the utilization of holographic techniques (so I’m a little ahead of the game here, but it’s coming soon to a neighborhood near you!)
Regarding anonymous comments, I think Griff had a good idea, (no, really, I do) when he allowed anonymous comments when he had actually spoken with the commenter. If at least one person knows who the anonymous person is, then, they have to stick to legal and moral guidelines. Of course, I don’t think you can still call the person anonymous, but it’s just as good.
That’s a compromise and a good one at that.
Bright,
Your suggestion is a good one. I guess that is why your parents named you ‘Bright’!
Martha
Aw, shucks, Martha, Thanks! I’m just a monkey with a typewriter, every once in a while a good one is bound to get out!
It was actually my Grandfather who gave me the name of Bright Star when I was born, he was there and named me for my eyes which were then blue against what was then a red face and raven black hair that stuck straight up
in the air.
Martha is a good name, all the ones I know are rich, and then you have that great last name to go with it. You go girl!
Bright, I love you, but I don’t want ‘permission’ to be anonymous. We’re adults — or at least old enough to type. There are many options for safe, monitored, censored, civil and claustrophobic discussion.
The paper can enforce legal and moral guidelines on anonymous comments…it’s called a delete key. To avoid accidentally shocking the community, there can be a delay in posting serving the same purpose as the 7-second delay on live radio talk shows. Easy as that, all obscenities and libelous comments can be kept off the page.
In fact, this whole issue is related to the long tradition of talk shows taking anonymous comments. We don’t think twice about all the venerable public radio stations that have survived using all anonymous comments (Bob from Minnetonka hardly qualifies as identification). To many of us who live and work online, this is a whole different world than print commentary, more immediate and more related to radio and video.
Let go of the control issues and have a little fun. Consider the ideas without knowing the personal agendas behind them (they’re usually painfully obvious anyway.)
It’s good for the spirit.
Martha: I must have been very obtuse, because you missed my point completely. I asked you to recall how an anonymous act affected you.
Regardless of anyone’s political POV, your, mine, Joe Blow’s , or Rudolph’s….. how is it acceptable to make personal comments that are libelous, make threatening phone calls to a person’s home, state that one is in control of another person’s physical well being, etc etc, all under the cover of anonymity…….. how is that acceptable?
Why not instead argue for the belief one holds, and support that argument with fact, instead of personal accusations attached to a newspaper story with no content connection?
And then why has the newspaper been pulling all these irrelevantly “Connected” comments?
This has nothing to do with any legitimate political view; this has to do with the presumed power gained by anonymous, cowardly acts.
Again, did you support the person who supposedly threw garbage on your lawn?
Hi, Anne. Love you, too. Hug, hug. I guess I am coming from the point of view that if you want to be anonymous in a town where you know the people you dislike or whatever, and they know you, you should have to earn the right to be anonymous…there should be accountability for serious opposition, and that goes for both sides, everyone included.
When your Bob from Minnitonka calls, no one knows him personally and he doesn’t know who is listening either. It’s fair in that.
As for obscenities and libel, I think the seven second delay tactic is great,
but is also a form of control.
I don’t mind a little control happening as I have lived too many years watching the lunatics run the asylum. Present company excluded, including me. Yeah!
Studies show that when people feel unsafe in a city, the city doesn’t thrive, no one invests in it, the people aren’t happy and the whole place turns into Detroit. I think that holds true for online cities, too.
Kiffi:
A few of us did raise the issue of anonymous comments at the last reader meeting, and there were some, like Anne, who were in favor of the “new ethics” of anonymity, and some who were in favor of something more like accountability.
There is a middle ground, where some web sites and discussion forums require that individuals register with actual names, but that they can have a user-name appear instead of their real name. This requires more time, perhaps manpower, the right software, and people can still circumvent it, but I think it’s better than nothing.
So while Anne’s voice in favor of that option was certainly one of the many voices at the meeting, I can remember at least two of us who were clearly against it.
There was at least one other web-based group with an email list in town whose policy was to have people use their own names, and a person who joined the group and posted comments, and did not respond to emails, seemed more interested in a kind of information vandalism than in real exchange.
Certainly in some contexts, you would only stimulate certain discussions (for TIME magazine’s web site, in response to an article on terrorism, or abortion, or…) if you could offer anonymity. But there’s a dark side to anonymity; do you want to pay that price so that you can stimulate certain discussions that might not otherwise happen? Maybe. Maybe not.
In that sense, as a metaphor for anonymous comments, maybe some graffiti is art, and some is just vandalism. If you live in a dictatorship, maybe you should expect certain acts of vandalism as poltical protest if free speech is severely restricted. But sometimes the vandals are the thugs and hirelings of the emperors-who-have-no-clothes. They intimidate and supress free speech. It’s a fact.
The hard thing about Rudolph the Red is that he probably works for the city, perhaps in something related to computers or engineering, and maybe his anonymity covers up a conflict of interest we might object to if we knew who he was (I can hear Tracy, or Britt, or David L., volunteering, or asking for, full disclosure of possible conflict of interest).
I grew up in St. Paul and spent a considerable amount of time in Mpls. I’ve been to lots of big cities, and I can say: Anonymity is very over-rated.
Unless you’re speeding, and you pass a highway patrol going in the other direction, and you make a few quick turns down side-streets in the next town, and they lose your trail. Then I s’pose it comes in handy.
Think of how far we’ve come from the freedom of speech the founding fathers envisioned: They weren’t thinking of anonymous posts and graffiti. They were thinking that people have the right to say what’s on their mind, and own it, and not be imprisoned, or vandalized, etc.
Some of the anonymous comment stuff is just too Rovian for me.
Apologies: We went from watchdogs, to reader panel (both of these at Griff’s prompting), to anonymous posts, and unless we make a link back, we’re in thread drift….
Is Rudolph the Red a legitimate citizen watchdog, or perhaps an insider-thug with a whose anonymity hides a conflict of interest, or some of each? (There’s a lame attempt to swing things back from thread-drift). We may never know for sure, as long as he’s anonymous. Ethical journalists should know their sources, even if those sources ask not to have their identities revealed. Some web-based discussions don’t have that layer of acountability, so you open things to manipulation by vested interests.
Wow, so many control issues in such a small town over problems that just might happen someday. I guess I don’t fear the people I know, nor the ones I don’t. I think anonymity is far more important in a small town than in a large one. And the News requires registering, although they don’t verify as they do for print letters. I think that works. I know the letters have been verified (although they could be faked if someone cared that much.)
I think Rudolph’s comments have been valuable, no matter what his agenda. If I knew his identity, I’d do everything I could to protect it. I don’t know, and I’m ok with that. He makes me think. He challenges me to consider which of his ideas are true and which are nonsense. So what is the point of knowing who he is, other than gaining a chance to punish him because he is in a position where he could lose his job for exercising his right to free speech? Is this about truth or revenge? What would we gain by knowing who he is, other than the power to silence him?
I find it more than a little disingenuous to talk about the damage of anonymous attacks after the untrue attacks that were allowed on this site over the last year in the guise of opinions. Happily, most of those have been ended now, mostly due to the continued revelations that have proven them unfounded. It seems that using names didn’t stop the damage, but the truth did.
Well, we’ve staked out our positions and aren’t likely to change them. I can live with registering, as I do for the News and Salon and other sites, but there’s really nothing that keeps me from registering a false name. I can use dozens of identities and e-mail addresses, so I guess when it comes right down to it, Griff can control his site, as he has the right to do, and those who wish can maintain anonymity on other sites. And as for the illusion of this being about knowing everyone in town and keeping the small town civility we cherish, there are 19,000 of us, many with only cell phones and so no listing in the phone book. This isn’t a small town. We are not all friends who know each other or at least recognize each other on the street. This site is a small subset of the town, but it is not the town.
The News is reaching a much broader audience, with much more diverse views than this group of commenters. They must have policies that work at all their papers in all their communities and beyond. They operate in a much more challenging and diverse world, and a much more competitive business model.
I think it’s great that we have many options. I hope we can maintain them.
Eeeeeuw, Anne, “control issues?” How so? I think it’s a matter of responsibility that people put their name to their opinions. What’s the point of having values if you don’t own them and hold them out publicly to others in words and deeds?
Kiffi
You were not obtuse in your post. However, you apparently did not agree with my response. No surprise. Your post is patronizing and, as usual, refuses to acknowledge the facts surrounding many of the issues. So “talk to the hand ….” I am outa here and offa here!
Well, if the truth be known, and you have a knowledgable IT guy around, like I do, no one will ever be completely anonymous sitting at home and posting anything. The anonymous poster can be tracked down even using the latest
programs that promise cover. It might take a while but it can be done.
Even from a library or other public place, a habitual user would prolly be found out.
Martha : I continue to be really saddened by the fact that you refuse to respond in a way that would be relevant to our “history”.
Speak to “the hand” ? Mafia or the Bird?
You can be angry: I AM NOT ……………except at those who use libel to “maliciously intend to damage others’ reputations” and who threaten others’ well-being.
Nope, I am not angry, just finished with the discussion. We do not view the facts in the same way. Apparently we never will. And regarding our relevant “history”, I believe I heard from either you or Victor that “… friendship ends at the city hall door.”
Carol, bullies always think shy kids should just toughen up. I’m not calling people here bullies, but it’s easy for strong personalities like us to own our opinions. We need to make safe places for people step into the discussion. Some people only find their voice to speak when they can do so without having to stand on stage in front of a crowd.
Martha is strong enough to stand up to Kiffi and I don’t care what you think of me, but many others aren’t as self-confident as all of us are.
It’s an honest difference of opinion. I see control issues and you see a moral obligation. I’m fine with Griff controling his own site. I’m just glad there are options out there. My point is that there should be options. If you don’t like sites with anonymous posts, don’t go there.
Martha: You did not hear that ( “friendship ends at the city hall door”) from me. When I tried to speak to you one night at city hall, you said, “I have nothing to say to you”. That was the first night you appeared at a council meeting. As a first greeting, that was pretty tough.
Why can’t the issues, be “the issue” here?
Martha and Kiffi, I think it would be best for you to handle your disagreement elsewhere, as it seems to involve primarily a personal issue between the two of you.
Griff,
I agree and will stop.
I’d rather the News set up a Peacemaker group than a Watchdog group. I see they are looking for accounting, law, and public service.
Graft? Waste? Drama baby, drama.
Come on, Holly, no one ever wins a Pulitzer with warm fuzzies
.
Seriously, I can see the lawyers and accountants being used to analyze budgets and tax rates and well, the seemingly endless legal issues of city government. It’s a lot more tedious calculation and analysis than drama, let me assure you.
You think our local lawyers and accountants will provide free analysis? Interesting.
I’m upset by the Marsha/ Kiffi rift. I like it better when we all get along. Telling them to “take it someplace else” offended me, too.
Well, Holly, when civic journalism started a lot of people thought there would be waves of people volunteering to cover city government for free and do investigative journalism for free. In general, the people who had that much interest in government had personal agendas that journalists wouldn’t have been allowed to have.
People expect writers to work for free all the time. I have volunteered hundreds of hours to organizations, only to have them say in budget meetings, “Oh, we’d never pay anyone to write for us…”
The point of having ‘watchdogs’ is to find news sources that might not be on the usual list. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If the paper uses outside sources it gets criticized, if it asks for local sources it gets hammered. May we can assume good motives, give it time and see what happens.
And Griff, we seldom mean to cross the line. Perhaps if you have to ask people to cease and desist, you can do it in a personal e-mail and let them make a graceful exit. Just an idea.
Anne: In post #22, you write,
“What would we gain by knowing who he is, other than the power to silence him?”
This is clearly misdirection. I don’t, and never did, advocate silencing. You are equating anonymous free speech with free speech. It’s not the same thing. Smoke and mirrors. Don’t silence anyone, but require accountability.
Sure, in some situations in a small town, anonymity is fine and useful. I don’t think it applies so well in the case you describe.
If an employee might lose their job if they were found to be posting comments under their own name, I would offer that there might be other ways for the same person to vent or act as a whistleblower, if needed, and anonymously, without posting public comments.
Citizen journalism? Where, at N.org? I remember when Griff started the CJ idea, and it seemed like a good idea.
But the volunteer idea was snuffed out (IMHO) with the idea that personal opinion should be left out of N.org articles. Also, people had to be great writers. Boom, suddenly-- “this article and that article can’t be printed.”
To make a long story short, there might have been a bunch of CJs interested in covering city issues, etc. but it didn’t go down well. Everyone jump on me now and tell me what really went on… okay… waiting…
Anne, honestly, the idea of a watchdog news group reminds me of McCarthyism. I understand the News needs to be creative, though. So, as you say, maybe give it time and we’ll see what greatness the group can do?
About comments that tend towards being a rift instead of a discussion: Instead of “take it elsewhere ladies” maybe we can think of another idea. Something fun, but not at my expense.
Hey, what is the story behind Rudolph the Red, again? I can’t find it…
Paul, we just need to agree to disagree. No point in rehashing our positions. I just read the rules on the Pioneer Press and they seem to be doing just fine with anonymous comments. It’s just not a big deal.
Holly, I was talking about civic journalism in general — I’ve only been here three years, so I don’t have the local history. And nearly every newspaper, ratio station and television news organization considers itself a watchdog and recruits citizens as tipsters, commenters, photographers and sources. I can’t imagine that being McCarthyism, so maybe you can explain that concept a little more.
Hey folks, I have no dog in this fight. Please do not fall on your ‘swords’ for something so trivial.
I appreciate the support and the jeers. I have learned more than I ever thought possible and ya know what (??????) I am okay. I am better educated and have greater common sense than I did when I went to bed last night!
Kiffi and I disagree on the “facts”. I am surmising that we may never agree in the future.
I do agree with Griff that it need not be played out on this blog.
I still think Bright has the correct name for her soul. I’ll trust her Grandfather for her ‘eyes’.
I think Anne has some awesome insight and wisdom that we all should consider more carefully.
I know first-hand that life is too short to quibble with ‘neighbors’. Just think of never being able to say “I am sorry — I regret ………..” I am still watching, committed and intend to improve my new home — Northfield!
I am still proud to say I am Noah Cashman’s sister.
Ya gotta love this place — better than reality TV!!!!!!!!
Cheers, Martha, for your graciousness and your reminder that meeting the letter of this site’s civility laws is not the same as embracing the spirit of civility.
Cheers to all…
Yikes, Griff can you fix my typo? If not, sorry, Martha. (Too long at the laptop my eyes and fingertips are failing me. Time to log off)
Anne, see the paragraph in our Guidelines on ‘public intervention.’
Anne wrote:
I think it’s fine, in general, for the Northfield News and Northfield.org to allow anonymous comments. Choice is good in this case.
Here at LoGroNo, and in nearly all my other online community-building projects, there’s a different overall mission that I think is furthered by requiring commenters to be who they are IRL (In Real Life). But that doesn’t mean everyone should have the same mission.
Griff -- what matters most to me is that you have set out clear guidelines available to all and are putting it up there as a reminder every now and then. The requirement of identification is the only way I see to hold people accountable for their statements. I don’t have a lot of time for those blogs where the writers are anonymous, their opinions are worth far less if they won’t own up to them, own them. It’s common in political stuff, like the Democrats Exposed site where the author wrote pretty snide and nasty stuff, though was ultimately outed, or even Spotty in Edina who’s been ID’d using triangulation. I always use my full name when posting in newspaper comments, which I do daily on energy issues, it’s a daily task to get word out and inform readers with projects in their communities, and in doing this, I see a lot of comments from all over the country. In blog posts and newspaper comments, the inciteful, slanderous, trash-talking and ugly comments are anonymous, people tossing out verbal bombs from under cover. I’ve had weird comments on my blog that I traced to utility employees, one of whom claimed his mother wrote it (on his business account, oh, right, sure… I have an urge to send a link to HR at his employer!). Anyway, I appreciate LoGroNo policy, that people are named, and wish all commenting would require it. I also think there should be intense junior and senior HS curriculum in writing opinion pieces, comments, and obligation of public participation as the essence of global citizenship. Being a member of the human race is not a spectator sport! Of course, public participation is not a value promoted in NCLB standards!
Anne: I wasn’t rehashing anything I’d said when I noted that it was misdirection for you to claim, “What would we gain by knowing who he is, other than the power to silence him?”
If I’d noted that we might gain an awareness of a possible conflict of interest on the part of the person posting anonymous comments, that would have been re-hashing.
And I was not rehashing anything I’d said before when I observed that employees who fear for their jobs but wish to act as whistleblowers have other avenues open to them besides anonymous comments.
But yes, let’s agree to disagree, and that there’s no need to rehash.
Anne said:
I meant the part where they describe what the watchdogs will do:
There’s a line between bing a good citizen i.e. asking questions as we come across something, and a group formed with such intent as to “expose” and investigate our neighbors. Soon, dissent will equal treason? Or perhaps, in our small community, ostracism… will we start to suspect each other, and then begin to raid each other’s homes?
okay, I’m just having fun with this.
More for Anne and others in the special watchdog group:
I guess here is the center of my argument: A watchdog group assigned to assess local activity suggests a unified voice which can ultimately define what is “acceptible” behavior in our community.
Further, this suggests exclusivity, which I don’t like:
still having fun with this
Holly: Good that you bring up (in #37) the analogy of McCarthyism in relation to watchdogs. There are ethical issues related to watchdogs and anonymous sources in journalism and government. These issues trouble some folks more than others (and in general, I think it’s the folks who are not troubled that we have to watch out for). We know of cases where journalists make up anonymous sources. Editorial oversight strives to avoid abuse, but editors miss some abuses. We know that government officials, long ago, learned the political/PR value of intentional leaks from “an unnamed government source.”
I’m not so much against watchdogs or anonymous sources themselves, as a matter of principle, as against their abuse. It’s good to have systems in place that guard against abuse, and to understand that no system will be foolproof. To that extent I agree with Griff.
Yet if an anonymous commenter (like Rudolph the Red, commenting on the NfldNews site) leaves a remark that their identity needs to remain unknown or certain people would have to fear for their safety, some might claim they view this as merely a joke, even “obviously a joke,” but if you’re among those who read this as a threat, it’s no joke at all.
Then anonymity is not being used as a tool of last resort for people who have a need and right to be heard, but being used as sport to intimidate. No one has the right to make “inside” jokes about how others should fear for their safety, and then assume that one still has some ethical claim to anonymity. That’s crap.
It’s not so different from the white employer who leaves a noose on his desk, calls the black employee in, and asks if he’s happy about his employment, and later says it’s “only a joke.” (Then, in their defense, they will claim, “Well, I didn’t hang him, did I? And, gosh, I never intended to! I actually like him a lot!” -- as if that’s consolation….)
You don’t hide behind the white robes (ah, anonymity!) and burn a cross on someone’s lawn, and then claim it was “only a joke.” And you don’t make “jokes” about people’s safety. I think we have to wake up and smell the ethical line that was crossed.
Limiting the response to simply deleting the offensive comments or ambiguous joke-threat isn’t enough. Anyone threatened by such an anonymous “joker” should have law enforcement on their tail, and every means necessary should be used to determine who the anonymous “joker” was, and those threatened should have the option of pressing charges.
So draw the ethical line. It’s one thing for Rudolph the Red (commenting on the Northfield News web site) to be an anonymous whistleblower of sorts, and to display generous wit and humor in the process. It’s another to cross the ethical line and, jokingly or not, make statements that some perceive as threats. It doesn’t matter if half of the folks reading consider it “just a joke.” Draw the line.
This discussion has a few tangents going… someone explain to me the Rudolph the Red comment which apparently was left in the News?
Or, how does the watchdog group fit with the annonymous commenter? Did the watchdog group allow the post…
Anyway, now I’ll add to the discussion about annonymous posting. Some of this discussion reminds me of my mother’s advice: It’s always best to say what we mean, and if you can’t say something to someone’s face, don’t say it at all. I’m glad Griff doesn’t allow for anonymous postings. And I think we should come up with some fun way to stop a conversation if it’s getting out of hand-- like 50 lashes with a wet noodle… something like that. Or a free cup of coffee at GBM while everyone sings your favorite song…
You know, I can’t post on DME because they shut me out. (Minnesotademocratsexposed) I could go downtown and post on a public computer-- but that is so stupid! If they really don’t want me commenting, then I guess that’s how it’ll be. I’m not going to sneak around just to get a comment on there.
All I did was suggest that Michael was helping democrats get elected and boom-- no more posting on that site. Banned.