Should KSN&C allow anonymous comments and take whatever we get? And if we do, would that drive the tone of the blog into the mud and undermine legitimate authority?
Or is it better to require all commenters to identify themselves, perhaps stiffling legitimate comments from insiders who may have something to lose when commenting on matters of public policy, or politics?
I chose to moderate the blog.
Recently, I've noticed several other blogs ("liberal" and "conservative") following suit.
Over at PolWatchers, John Stamper wrote,
"We've had to spend way too much time the past few days deleting comments that don't comply with our comment policy. It's getting old. Therefore, those who comment must now submit a valid e-mail address before their comment will be published."
Pat Crowley noticed the same problem at his Northern Kentucky Politics blog and wrote,
"I busted five posts this morning. I'm going to do my best to kill the comments [w]here public officials and potential candidates are called "morons" and are the focus of gossip and rumors. Not going to happen. I'll allow criticism all day, but every comment I busted made some decent points except for the name-calling and rumor-mongering. It's a few days before Christmas folks. Make your points, but don't be so darn nasty."
Earlier in the week at vere loqui, Martin Cothran said,
"I'm instituting a new policy on comments, which is that I'll let your comment run as long as you don't needlessly insult someone or call into question someone's honesty or integrity without some kind of justification. There are people who want to post on this blog without giving their names and want to hide behind their anonymity while calling other people's integrity into question.
What's particularly ironic is when, while using anonymity to avoid responsibility for their own behavior, they accuse me or someone else of hypocrisy. I'll just call it hypocrisy squared."
Naturally, I applaud these decisions - much as I applaud anyone who agrees with me on just about anything. My hope is that the overall tone of public debate in Kentucky will achieve a kind of civility that is far too often missing on too many blogs. Rather than advancing useful ideas, "flaming" seeks the most outrageous expression of dissent, that is often personally destructive, whether it advances a legitimate argument or not.
Will this kind of decision reduce the sum of comments received on the blogs? Probably. But I'm OK with that, if in turn we get a more reasoned tone that creates a free space for expression without creating fear that one's comments might produce personal retaliation.
KSN&C continues to invite comments whenever a reader is moved to contribute one. Make a strong point if you wish - all we ask is a professional tone. We also invite tips, copies of official memoranda or other documents that illustrate official practice. Feel free to email the moderator - but take care to indicate if you wish your identity to remain anonymous on the blog.
Some may consider this censorship -not government censorship - but censorship nonetheless. In a literal sense, I suppose that's true. There are blogs out there that seem to invite personal attacks. If that's what you're looking for, you can find it. But not here.
1 comment:
Usually moderation is ok, but some blogers will say outrageous or untrue things and get upset and want to moderate when the readers bite back. Cothran is probably the most likely to behave like this. Your blog is remarkably good and full of content; things are fairly stated here and there has never been a need to be rude or even over the top.
Post a Comment