If it ever feels like the Internet is shrinking, that’s because it is and newspapers are looking to make it even smaller as they dive into the issue of anonymous comments on their Web sites. In a recent New York Times articles entitled, “News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments,” journalists and media outlets are advocating for the removal of anonymous comments and moving towards registered user comments. My comment is, “It’s about time!” It is no secret that the Internet, while culturally transformational and revolutionary, can be a hub for digital bathroom graffiti. This is clearly evident in anonymous comments posted in articles on media outlet Web sites, which brings about a needed conversation about changing how the media engages its online users and how that community interacts with each other.
News, when written objectively, is designed to inform its audiences and elicit thoughtful conversations. Using the Internet as a channel for these conversations interconnects the world and becomes a global melting pot of ideas and points of views which breeds a beautiful culture of participatory democracy and is a living statement of freedom of speech. If everyone wrote comments with this purpose in mind then there would be no need for any regulation, but this is not the case. There are many article comments that detract from the dialogue of people sharing thoughts by posting abrasive or over abusive verbiage, so much so that pages and pages of these comments disguise those that are truly relevant to the discussion and get lost in the clutter, or even worse do not get posted at all because the audience reading the articles are not the audience reading the comments. On several occasions I have not posted a comment on an article because the other comments didn’t engage the topic, forcing me to ask, “If I post this, who is going to listen?”
In addition to the overwhelming amount of comments that are tattered with inflammatory speech, come the comments that are rigged with mudslinging propaganda, citing in particular the situation mentioned in the Times article with the judge who posted anonymous comments about the lawyer who’s case she presided over.
The ugliness of some comments is undeniable and a testament to the damage of anonymity, but also anonymity just is not “in.” Internet users are starting to create online identities of their real selves through social networking sites, widgets and the inclusiveness of technology across the board. To not have an online identity, is to not exist socially, in the job market, in the consumer market and is not hip. To be honest, if I cannot find someone on one of these sites or through a google search, I really debate if they are even worth knowing! The days of hiding behind America Online screennames are far behind us and soon to follow is Internet anonymity. The media outlets that require a digital footprint now before it becomes the standard have a better handle on increasing trends and a more effective way at targeting their most interactive readers.
Media outlets ridding their sites of anonymous comments reap the benefits in these ways:
*Registered User Tracking: Media outlets would have the ability to track their registered users and how they interact with their Web sites. Through analytics advertisers can more effectively target their audiences and outlets can entice the purchasing of ad space next to the comments column, which has been lacking in sales.
*User Engagement Community: Users will be more encouraged and empowered to engage in conversation knowing that other users are there for the same purpose establishing a community.
*Relevant Discussions: Article comments become what they were designed to be, a forum for people to share thoughts and opinions through a relevant discussion.
*Digital Circulation: The more people engaging in an online conversation, the higher the likelihood of them retweeting articles or posting them on Facebook, increasing impressions.
Media outlets have already begun to look into ways to regulate anonymous comments. Requiring users to register with the website with an e-mail verification before they are allowed to engage on the site is a good start. The fact that one has to register and verify with a valid e-mail address requires a decent amount of mouse work that some offenders just do not want to deal with. Allowing users to rank other users establishes credibility and encourages visitors to increase their “cred” so that their opinions are heard. The integration of social media sites like Facebook and LinkedIn also eliminates anonymous postings. Check out Citysearch.com and Metromix.com to see how they integrate Facebook into their venue reviews. Establish a clear user policy that outlines what is marked as offensive or is marked as clutter that does not contribute to the goal of creating relevant dialogue. Hire a person who’s job is to police the Web site and identify violators of the user policy. I know resources are low and hard to come by, but these are all excellent first steps in removing anonymous comments as a media outlet standard. The needs and capabilities of every media outlet are different, so these strategies may or may not work, but it is a trial and error process.
Defenders of freedom of speech argue that the media must allow those who are disenfranchised to have a voice and that anonymous comments serve as a stage for people who might want to say something that might affect them professionally or socially. To the disenfranchised I say, voicing opinions might lift a heavy burden but a presence is what elicits change. To those who want the freedom to say what they would like about their jobs or their neighbors without the accountability I say, leave the gossip for the water cooler and the PTA meetings.
The abolishment of anonymous comments will change the digital face of media interaction, but how else will these trends affect readers and their media consumption? Care to comment?
Check out the blog posted on Quinn and Co. Public Relation's purple lounge - www.quinnandco.com/wordpress
