Online credibility
November 1, 2008
- Posted by Deborah Jones
Toronto Star public editor Kathy English wrote of the Toronto Star's recent move to axe pseudonymous online comments alongside signed letters in its online Web Forum:
"I would prefer the Star demand real names of those who comment online. I've been told that's a near-impossible expectation in the online environment. I don't buy that.
"I understand that in this challenging era of evolution in journalism, the Star must embrace the possibilities of the Internet. But we must aim to do so in a manner consistent with this newspaper's long-standing commitment to ethical journalism you can trust."
I agree with English. Reputation and credibility are, when all is said and done, all that professional journalism has to offer in a world awash with infotainment and misinformation. The deluge of online commentary by anonymous anybodies (with their weirdly juvenile affinity for potty jokes and below-the-belt blows that would be libelous in any other publishing environment) have no place in ethical, accountable, credible journalism.
|
If it's worth saying, it's worth putting your name on it.
Granted, in some circumstances anonymity is necessary for reasons of safety, but most of the time people should have no choice but to use their real names, and the names should be verified.
If you are simply remaining anonymous to protect your paycheck then you will have to put up with a large and growing group of people like me who will expose information about you or your employer that you would rather the world didn't know.
If you want to defend your employer or your job then put your name on it, because if you don't, you don't count for tens of thousands of people who are tired of corporate misinformation.
Hiding behind anonymity is for those comfortable with looking the other way.
The Toronto Star seemed to always select the online comments that agree with its editorial viewpoint. It was not a good practice.
As the victim of someone who posted libellous, threatening and false comments under various fake names, I couldn't agree more that the writer's actual name MUST be used, otherwise, the comments are meaningless.
How credible is the information if someone opts to hide behind a pseudonym? How do you verify the comments? It begs the following question: why do people choose to use a fake name? Any answers out there?
From Wikipedia to blogs, the Internet is a minefield full of material that cannot be trusted.
The letters to the editor section of any newspaper is probably the least read part of the least read section of the newspaper.
Members of J-Source's editorial masthead have struggled with this issue since the site's birth. No one wants to stifle expression, but the idea of requiring commenters to post with real names, as well (of course) as conforming to standards of discourse as spelled out in our comments policy, has some appeal to some of us, for the reasons described above.
Our comments policy already includes the following line: "Please sign your post unless there is a sound and clear reason for anonymity." At this point, it's a request, not a requirement. But there's a case to be made for drawing a stricter line. What do others think? - Ivor Shapiro (Editor-in-Chief, J-Source).