I’ve found the debate over anonymous commenting to be quite interesting.
For me, it first flared up about a week ago, when Mathew Ingram and Howard Owens debated news organizations’ reader commenting policy on Twitter. Should readers have to provide a real identity (first, last name) and possibly a verification of that identity, or should you allow them to be anonymous and only provide a screen name? Ingram, who later posted about this issue in his blog, supports anonymity. Owens does not.
The argument flared brighter when the Cleveland Plain Dealer recently revealed the e-mail address of an anonymous commenter, lawmiss. You can read about the entire situation, in a nutshell, here. In the aftermath of that, the Washington Post recently put up a reader poll on anonymous commenting — 39 percent said readers should be required to identify themselves before posting comments. 47 percent said no.
In a perfect world, everybody would comment with their true identities and everybody would know each other’s specific place in a community. Everyone would put a face behind the name and behind their opinion and help incite a valuable discussion of issues. But let’s be honest. This isn’t a perfect world. One of the biggest issues facing news organizations in regards to their Web sites is how to handle the racket of readers that spew vomit, so to speak, in the comments section. How do you control the personal, illogical and sometimes racist attacks on a Web site?
Many people point straight at the anonymity those readers enjoy, and say the lack of accountability on those commenting allow them to write whatever they desire. My take: You do it by regularly monitoring your comments, approving them before they appear and engaging with your active audience. You don’t do it by taking away anonymity and requiring identity from your readers.
The best example I have to correlate with this issue: Think of bathroom stalls. Their wall conditions always vary — some are completely clean and clear. But others are covered in messages, numbers and drawings. Usually, it has nothing to do with the condition of the rest of the building or even the socioeconomic status of a community, whether you feel you can make those connections or not. I’ve seen real nice establishments have their bathrooms covered in marker and engravings.
Anybody can — anonymously, mind you — take a marker out of their pocket and write a message in a bathroom stall. The question is whether the owner(s) of the establishment, or the maintenance team, is paying attention to it. The more somebody closely monitors and removes markings as soon as they’re written, the more discouraging it is for people to write them. People are more encouraged to write something when they see others have done it. To them, it means whatever they write will stick, too — and others will read it.
Virtually the same thing applies to a comments section on most, if not all, Web sites. If you allow the forum for somebody to write a personal attack against someone, they’ll do it. Yes, anonymity plays a role, but it is not the primary reason why comment sections turn into ghettos. To point at anonymity is missing the point. I’ve seen plenty of message boards and forums that are cespools of valuable discussion and insight — and none of them require identities to be revealed. The secret? Close monitoring of discussion. Moderators/editors even took time to talk with readers. These simple changes to a newspaper’s comments area can bring the section out of the ghetto.
It’s pretty simple, really — A person posting drivel in a comments section has to have an incentive to do it. That incentive, more often than not, is the opportunity for others to read it. Not just because they anonymously can.
Two more arguments that can be made in favor of anonymous commenting:
How do you verify a “true identity”? Any site can make their audience register with a first name, last name and e-mail address before commenting. But it is just as easy for someone to register as John Smith with a random e-mail address they never use. Who is to say true identities are actually being revealed? Furthermore, who is to say those who care to fill this information out is more valuable to your active audience than those who don’t? Some people just prefer not to give first and last names. Which leads me to my second point…
By requiring IDs, you are censoring those who feel uncomfortable providing basic information. If we’ve learned anything from the verbal violence some stories receive, the Internet can be a brutal place. People today are still intimidated by how open it is, and people still feel vulnerable when revealing basic personal information on an open, public forum. Many times, I would argue it has little to do with accountability and more to do with personal comfort. It’s easy for us tech-savvy people to feel comfortable revealing our information in the public forum, but you have to think of your audience. For readers, perception can be reality — and we have to acknowledge that.
One thing I will acknowledge: Whether allowing anomymous commenting is the most effective policy varies newsroom to newsroom. Both sides of this issue could be the right way in different areas. Owens, the publisher of the online-only Batavian in Batavia, N.Y., finds requiring identities works best for his organization. Others employ Facebook Connect, which Ingram calls a “persistent identity agent” — that’s certainly a good way to encourage people to use “real” identities.
It’s not that I’m against real identities. Like I said, in a perfect world, no one would have aliases to hide behind. But there are certain realities that make this issue so much more complex and, to me, it’s much more practical and efficient to allow for anonymity in a discussion and to go about other means of making your comments section lively and without attacks and profanity.
Feel free to comment below with your thoughts. Do you think news organizations should require readers to provide their real identities?
Posted by Brian Manzullo at March 30, 2010
Journalism