I have been called technophobic, Islamophobic, a hippie socialist and biased about everything from eating disorder treatments to Charter Internet service. My sanity has been debated and I have even been referred to a psychiatrist's couch. That's a lot of crazy talk about one person.
Of course, these accusations are largely false, but they do come from real online reader comments on my various opinion columns in The Daily Cardinal. While some have honestly been insulting, most are too hot-headed and absurd to take seriously. Outside of the opinion section however, one would expect this absurdity to tone itself down a bit, and it does. But only by a bit.
Open comment sections can provide a discussion forum otherwise unavailable, ne a valuable connection between writers and readers, expose inaccuracies and offer intelligent and diverse opinions. For example, Jack Craver, writer of ""The Sconz"" on www.thedailypage.com, takes a responsible and respectful role in responding to reader comments by extending debates and thanking readers for shedding light on certain topics. Also, online comments on the Nov. 10 article in The Badger Herald, ""Staged diversity photo shoot canceled,"" helped the campus better understand the true issues and events of the story by highlighting the article's misinformation.
These are just a few instances of how online comment sections are beneficial to our community. Too often, however, readers view comment sections as their own personal blog space to propagate their own uncensored and often unrelated beliefs. And this is in no way helpful.
In February, The Badger Herald's comment sections that featured anti-Semitic and threatening content drew attention to this issue. The paper took action to adopt stricter policies when allowing comments, but the issue has not disappeared at any paper. The Daily Cardinal deletes about one comment a week that is either threatening or solely a personal attack. On the other hand, www.madison.com, the website for both the Cap Times and Wisconsin State Journal deletes about 5 percent of overall comments on an individual basis, according to a report in the Isthmus by Bill Lueders. These may seem like small numbers, but the leftover comments, while not threatening, are generally of low intelligence and are an embarrassing display of human morality.
Lueders' report on ""inappropriate comments"" in the Isthmus was sparked by the recent national attention given to the Janesville Gazette's decision to remove its comments section for articles involving crime, courts, accidents, race or sex. The paper's editor, Scott Augus, said people ""simply can't or won't behave.""
I could not agree more. Many posts are so shrouded in aggression that even a productive message emerges as an assault and its potential intellectual contribution is lost. UW-Madison journalism school director Greg Downey expanded on this sentiment in a post earlier this year when he wrote, ""the juvenile and mob-like aggression and assault invited by an open anonymous forum can serve to chill the very speech it was intended to protect,"" and often posts are ""personal attacks masquerading as productive debate.""
But is deleting potentially controversial comments online the only answer to society's tendency to be outrageous assholes? It will undoubtedly silence the idiots. But it is not the answer, because it entirely erases the benefits of an open discussion. I do not like this solution at all. But at the same time, I also don't like asshole comments.
Anonymity and assholes go together like watching Office Max's Elf Yourself and giggling: One inevitably leads to another. Downey concludes his post by asking how to make online discussion productive, diverse, safe, interesting, open and civil, and the answer is removing anonymity.
We are all educated folk, and what you say and do should reflect you and your intelligence, as it does in real life. Hiding identities online removes this personal reflection and in effect creates ""havens for ... bigotry,"" according to Lueders' earlier Isthmus article on anonymity.
All campus newspapers should seriously consider deleting the anonymous commenting option. The Isthmus did, and digital media director Jason Joyce said, ""We think that the level of quality of comments is much higher if people sign their names.""
Until this option is considered, do yourself a favor and sign your name. If you would be ashamed to reveal your identity, maybe what you're writing is not worth being written. Faceless usernames have no conscience behind them, but your real name is attached to yours. So use them—your name and your conscience—when commenting on an article.
Melissa Grau is a sophomore intending to major in journalism. We welcome all feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
