About Those Online Comments …

Archive for the 'About those online comments …' Category

The emailbag: Pertinent question; Loving Rip and a ban on commenters

September 4th, 2012, 9:28 am by madisontaylor

The end of summer signaled a typical slowdown in email traffic from readers. Still had a few in August. Here goes.

I got this one from a Mebane reader who first called to question me about the front page placement of our first-day Republican Convention story last week. We had a great discussion over the telephone about stories, newspapers and the need for national news in a community. Here’s what he wrote me afterward.

Madison, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the local community. I was disappointed in your coverage on the Republican Convention this morning edition and of all places to put a reference to Obama right in the middle. Your explanation was excellent. As I mentioned I moved from Northern Virginia about 4 years ago to Mebane and have been a customer of yours and enjoy the local news. The issue that I have is a lot of people are ignoring the convention and have no idea what’s going on in Washington DC and how important the decisions made in that arena affects us in Alamance County. I am certainly a two-party person but a lot of people I come in contact are Democrats, because their parents and grandparents were. They apparently have tunnel vision and by incorporating only the local news and ignoring the national news, maybe a disservice to the public. The local public is changing with all the retirees which is good and they are very interested in not only the national but global news as well. My comments only and I have and will continue enjoying your paper.
Ken Born

MY TAKE: The newspaper edition Mr. Born is talking about was published on Aug. 29, which coincided with a centerpiece package on our front page remembering the late Williams High student and football quarterback Harry Cohen, whose stunning death was a year ago that date. Because it was the first convention day we decided to put the story on A1 down the left hand side of the page — removing our normal rail of news blurbs, weather, etc. that usually goes there. So the GOP Convention was on the front page and above the fold.

Mr. Born also questioned a small promo placed in the text of the story letting readers know a related story about the Obama campaign was inside the A section. The latter is pretty standard for a lot of stories we publish. In our business we call them refers or teasers. I’m not sure I think it detracts from the overall story.

I told Mr. Born we would give the GOP coverage bigger play throughout the week, which was our plan all along. In fact, we had it set for big advance play the previous day but Hurricane Isaac scotched those plans.

This week our Democratic Convention coverage will probably just a tad larger because it’s in North Carolina — just a couple of hours away in Charlotte. And because we’re coming off a three-day holiday weekend, there is simply less going on and fewer people at work. We’re short a photographer this week which will also change how things are presented on our front page.

I also told Mr. Born that as the news business changes, we are much more dedicated to coverage of local news, features and events. The national news is available from so many other sources who can devote more newsprint or airtime.

We are trying to use our wire services to bulk up our regional coverage of the Triad and Triangle to augment our local news digest. Hopefully it’ll give readers what they need.

Loving Rip Haywire

Rip Haywire by Graham artist Dan Thompson is one of our more controversial comics. Many of my friends who are artists admire it greatly. Others don’t like it all. They find the serial format old-hat and hard to follow. They also think its subject matter is inappropriate for some younger readers.

So I love it when someone writes in to salute Rip and his creator. Personally, I’m a Rip Haywire fan.

Here’s the note from Jeff Tudor of Graham.

My emails to the editor are usually about more serious subjects, but I have to say how much I enjoy reading Rip Haywire in my Times-News. I was recommending it to a friend in Greensboro, which prompted me to look online for info about the strip. I was surprised to read that the Times-News actually publishes the strip. Keep up the good work!

MY TAKE: I had to correct Jeff on the publication of the strip. While Dan lives in Graham, we don’t publish it here. It’s handled by a syndicated service. But Dan’s a great guy and we relish the opportunity to help out his career.

Phooey to online commenters

I got this note from Bob about our online commenting system — especially a handful of commenters.

Madison: I know all about the First Amendment and everyone having the right to voice their own opinion. But have you ever thought about banning 5-6 people from the comments section of the Letters To The Editor because they do nothing but name call and conduct a pissing contest everyday???

MY TAKE: From a personal standpoint, I would love to. In fact, I stopped reading the online comments a long time ago for exactly the reason Bob points out. I only go there when readers specifically ask me to or to see what someone who works for the Times-News might be saying online.

I had hoped that a year ago when we switched to the Facebook commenting system things might change. As most recall, that system strongly encourages people to put a name with their posts instead of a pseudonym. It has ended most anonymous commenting, but not all.

It’s difficult in this system to ban a user without also having them removed from Facebook so we tread carefully in that area. And we can’t delete comments but can make them so others who are not Facebook friends of the commenter in question can’t see them.

It’s sad that discourse today can’t be conducted in a civil manner or one free of snarky comments.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • The e-mailbag • Why we do things | Post a Comment »

Disappearing comments? Don’t ass-ume the worst

February 20th, 2012, 9:06 am by madisontaylor

Several months ago, last fall in fact, we changed our online commenting format to one operated through Facebook. It was built to perhaps not eliminate but seriously curb posting by online trolls who lie in wait to ambush otherwise intelligent commenters who have legitimate points of view to offer about a story or feature posted on our website, www.thetimesnews.com.

So far, it’s worked pretty well. The number of intellect-numbing and vicious posts have lessened. There are still people who comment under assumed names — but far fewer than before. By all appearances, it seems that most of our regular commenters are doing so under their real names — which fosters less hateful posting. Our online debates seems to be carried on with a little more thought and less rancor than before.

That was our goal.

In the meantime, we expected the number of commenters to decline — severely at first. That also happened. The good news, though, is that our numbers are picking back up. The trolls we lost seem to have been replaced by people who did not wish to comment before because of poor behavior by others.

Now it may be time to revist some housekeeping issues. The first one is adjusting the profanity filter. When we began our new system we kept the settings on the most restrictive level. My feeling at the time was one of zero tolerance. We didn’t want to encourage the kind of activity that was a problem before. As a result, though, some comments are being sent into an area for moderation by people on our staff. Most of the time, the filter flags posts with horrible profanity that shouldn’t appear for public consumption. But sometimes, the filter gets it wrong.

Machines, what can you do?

Example, one of the words it flags is ass. Because ass is seen as a bad string of letters, the computer system will hold up any comment that includes words like class, association, assignment, etc. Obviously, that’s not our intent. There is no reason to flag posts with such words and hold them in cyber prison awaiting parole.

I’m going to speak to our online folks today about altering the setting so this doesn’t continue.

Other problems in the new commenting format are a little trickier to handle. Facebook is set up so friends can see the posts of other friends the quickest. This hierarchy-style system sometimes does cause comments to disappear and reappear for no apparent reason. We can’t alter that. Also, if you block someone on Facebook, you can’t see their posts.

So everyone is clear, we don’t delete posts. The profanity-laden ones go to a place for approval before they appear in public. If a post goes over the line, we can hide it — but not delete it. People who are Facebook friends with an abusive commenter can still see their posts.

We’re still working on the commenting system in hopes of making it an even better forum for people to congregate and talk. I would also encourage people to monitor the stories the Times-News posts on its Facebook page. Several good discussions are going on there among readers who also participate in questions and polls.

But when it comes to whether comments are deleted by our staff, don’t assume the worst.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Coming soon online | Post a Comment »

Tone deaf commenting an online hazard

December 7th, 2011, 11:04 pm by madisontaylor

Last week a part of the community was shaken by the sudden and tragic death of Burlington native Emily Balog who was killed in an automobile accident while working for the Peace Corps in Paraguay. It’s a noble undertaking that came to a shocking end. It rattled many in our area. Emily Balog was a Williams High grad and the daughter of Steve and Susan Balog. Steve Balog is a former district attorney for Alamance County and a retired superior court judge.

We pursued the story in our usual way after hearing about it. After all, we don’t have routine access to police reports in foreign nations. With help from the Peace Corps, we were able to cobble together information for our readers without disturbing the family.

Once the story was posted online, I took the additional step of making it accessible on Facebook. We have done so on the Times-News Facebook page for the past couple of years (feel free to go there and like us). People there can comment on those stories and we encourage them to do so. As soon as the story about the death of Emily Balog was posted, though, one of our regular commenters made a remark that I didn’t feel appropriate for this particular situation. It wasn’t libelous, obscene or even truly hateful compared to a lot of what I see. It was simply in poor taste and not the correct thing to have posted at that particular time. The remark had more to do with whether people should help in foreign countries.

I deleted it rather quickly. He posted it again. I deleted it once more. From there, he stopped — which I appreciated.

One of our online readers and Times-News family members, however, saw the post before I could remove it and became incensed. Antonia Bowden Taylor is a Williams alum who now teaches English at St. Mary of the Woods College in Terre Haute, Ind. She is the daughter of our graphics designer Linda Bowden.

Antonia immediately fired off a letter to the editor. I told her I would print it here because the comments she references never appeared in our print product. Here’s what she has to say.

On Sunday night, November 26, I started to notice some chatter on Facebook. It didn’t take me long to realize that Emily Balog, someone I’d once been acquaintances with, had passed away. I noticed all of the touching posts and photographs from her friends and was struck by the fact that someone who truly made an impact on those around her has been lost. I didn’t know Emily personally, but in high school her brother Alan and I were in the same group of friends as we both served in the Williams High School Marching Band. I am generally saddened for the loss of such an accomplished young woman and for the pain that I know the Balog family and Emily’s friends are now suffering.

This evening, I was once again saddened while reading the Times-News’ article about the tragedy. It was nice, however, to read Rosalee Papandrea’s heart-felt and touching story about Emily. I like that it focused not on Emily’s death but on her life and the happiness she found in helping others.

What upset me almost as much as this tragic accident, though, is the nasty comment posted below the article. The statement did not attack Emily personally, but it was completely unnecessary, had nothing to do with the tragedy itself, and was meant to preach the poster’s political agenda. The comment has since been deleted. I will not sink to the level of the author who posted it by repeating what he said. In a time like this—when a woman’s life has been cut short—there is no excuse for this type of behavior. I personally cannot imagine commenting on anything but the impact Emily had on friends and family or the good she’d done and accomplishments she’d made during her too-short life.

As a professor of writing, I teach my students about the impact of our words. I emphasize the importance of considering audience and knowing what types of arguments are appropriate and when to make them. The death of a young woman is not the time or place to post such unnecessary personal political agenda — especially when the audience is probably going to include her friends and family.

I know that Internet trolls have been a problem within the Times-News website for quite some time. I have a special relationship with the paper. Along with my own general browsing of posted articles and accompanying comments, I have first-hand knowledge of the types of comments that never make it to, or are deleted from, the website and Facebook page. I not only worked as a copy editor and page designer from 2004-2005, but my mother, Linda Bowden, has worked for the paper for over 21 years and is the News Room Graphics Editor. She’s often talked to me about the hate-filled rants that filled the comments section of the website and hoped that once the new Facebook-linked commenting was implemented that some of these comments would stop. She was mostly right. There seem to be far fewer nasty posts than there used to be, but every once in a while, someone manages to slip something in. Even if that something is only up for nine minutes (yes, I counted; I was going to call the newsroom myself if it wasn’t deleted soon), that’s nine minutes too long. That’s nine minutes that extra and unnecessary pain could be inflicted upon the friends and family of Emily — all of whom are dealing with enough.

Clearly, you posters have the right to say whatever you’d like online (just as the Times-News administrators have the right to delete posts they deem unacceptable).

My question is this: to those of you who post these nasty messages, what do you get out of them? Does it make you feel better to write something spiteful in an anonymous or semi-anonymous arena? If so, why? Most of you lament the way the world is and how negative things are these days, and you sure don’t hesitate to place the blame for the crumbling of society on others. On everyone, that is, but yourselves. Instead of adding to the hate and negativity, why not do something to help out? Constructive conversations come out of understanding and acknowledgement of the other side. Not sweeping generalizations and vitriolic, hate-filled rants posted on articles that are meant to shed light on a tragedy and honor the life of aBurlington native.

My heart goes out to Mr. and Mrs. Balog, Alan, and Emily’s friends and family. I am truly sorry for your loss.

Those of you who write these kinds of posts should be ashamed of yourselves, and because of you, for the first time since moving away fromBurlingtonseven years ago, I am ashamed to be a native of Alamance County.

Antonia Bowden Taylor
Instructor of English and Communication
Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College
Terre Haute,Indiana

MY TAKE: Well stated. There’s very little I could add to what Antonia is saying. I wish our posters would or could take into account the people they might harm in a situation like this one. There is a time and a place for everything — and equally inappropriate times and places.

In this regard, many seem truly tone deaf or uncaring. I’m unsure which might be worse.

Posted in: About those online comments ... | 5 Comments »

Hope and change and … peace

October 17th, 2011, 8:28 pm by madisontaylor

Got an email tonight. The user name identified the sender as Victor Jeffreys. He did not leave a signature. We long believed Mr. Jeffreys posted on our old anonymous commenting system under a variety of aliases. It was a suspicion.

Here’s what he said.

“Well it looks to me (judging by the accross(sp) the board barren comments on articles) that that hope and change thingy isn’t off to a real good start.”

Later, with a different user name, he sent a second email (but his first one was still at the bottom of the second) and listed all of the people in our interactive staff and wondered how the Times-News could keep them unemployed under their current titles with the obvious dropoff inweb traffic since a change that made anonymous commenting more difficult.

I’ll tackle the first question, well, first. The changeover to the new Facebook-based commenting system has gone pretty much exactly as we expected it to — based on what happened at other newspapers within our company that had already made the switch. My former paper in Jacksonville, N.C. made the change a few weeks ago as did the paper we own in Kinston. The same was true in Seymour Ind. Colorado Springs and other larger newspapers are now doing so or soon will.

Yes, commenting traffic is way down. And that’s actually a good thing. We have far fewer comments but the quality of the content is higher and the vitriol eliminated. There is a particuarly interesting discussion on a letter to the editor from Larry Cox about the Duke Energy rate increase. It’s a debate with disagreements but without rancor. Interesting stuff. What we’re looking for.

Not all the threads are up to that standard but absolutely none even approach the abysmal depths seen when our anonymous commenting system was in full throttle, oh, about four days ago.

Friday, the first full day of the new commenting system, we had a few technical glitches. Some comments couldn’t be seen on posts for unknown reasons. Apparently that has worked itself out.

For the most part, we’re very pleased with how the commenting has gone so far. We expect it to grow over time — but it’ll probably never reach the levels we had before. That’s not a big concern for us. Getting rid of abusive content was. I have advised our moderators to be brutal in comments they remove and leave no margin for error when comes to name-calling and other problems. So far, we’ve had almost none.

So we have peace — for now. That, and a website we could be proud of, were our goals. If traffic goes down a little, so what.

As for comment No. 2 I can only laugh. Online commenters make up only a small portion of the more than 400,000 page views we get on a weekly basis. Removing photo galleries? Now that would be a problem. We also have the chance to actually draw new business to our site as a result of online commenters leaving because many didn’t want to be associated with such a thing.

The community blog section of the old commenting system was also lost. We had a couple of readers who had interesting blogs there that I wish could’ve been saved. But when we changed companies, the old system had to go. For that I apologize. But while a couple of the community voice blogs were well done, a few others were also filled with the kinds of stuff we saw posted at the ends of stories.

I don’t miss that at all.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Inside the Times-News | 45 Comments »

UPDATE — The notebook: Keep Tom and Frances in your thoughts …

October 14th, 2011, 7:33 am by madisontaylor

Some quick Friday morning notes:

First and foremost I’d like to send along my prayers and best wishes today to Frances and Tom Woody. Tom, as many regular readers of the Times-News know, was diagnozed last year with cancer of the esophagus. Earlier this year doctors told him the cancer was gone after a series of radiation and chemo treatments.

But in August, it was back.

Today Tom is undergoing surgery at Duke University Hospital in an attempt to remove it. Frances, our longtime newsroom administrator and popular columnist, is right there. She’ll spend most of this day anxiously waiting for the tricky operation to end. When I spoke to Tom yesterday he admitted that perhaps Frances might have the harder day ahead.

That couid be debated, but let’s say there are a lot of tough moments ahead for them both. I know the legion of fans Frances has developed over the years will want to send along their best wishes. She is very grateful for those who have contacted us over the past few months, a time in which the Woodys have not only dealth with Tom’s health issues but the untimely death of their son Andy due to heart condition at age 48.

The surgeon told Tom he would be in the hospital at least two weeks — and probably a little more. Frances will there throughout. During that time, we will return to publishing “best of” columns by Frances. We’re sure her fans will understand this.

Keep them in your thoughts.

UPDATE: I got a call in the early afternoon from one of Tom and Frances’ daughters. She reports that her dad came through the surgery as well as could be expected. The surgeon told the family that the procedure went beautifully. He is hoping to have Tom walking around on Saturday.

Great news.

———-

All systems … go?

Our new online commenting system began today and the level of users has certainly dropped. We expected this. But also, many users are trying to figure out how to use it, too. On my early post headlined “Due to circumstances beyond our control” two are offering comments back and forth with tips and suggestions for how to make the system work best. Honestly, I’m learning on the fly just the way everyone else is.

That particular comment thread may be useful for some. In it the new and old systems are discussed. I also outline what we will look for when it comes to moderating comments and users.

So far I’ve received one email today about the change. This is it.

“Being that you have restricted my first amendment freedom of speech on the comment section I will no longer subscribe to your paper.”

I wrote this person back and reminded them that there is absolutely no First Amendment garauntee that protects anonymous online comments. I also said anyone is absolutely free to comment using their names.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Inside the Times-News | 6 Comments »

Due to circumstances beyond our control …

October 11th, 2011, 12:42 pm by madisontaylor

Some depressing news this afternoon. Our shift to Facebook-based commenting on our online stories and features has been pushed back to Thursday. Apparently it’s a design issue. It’s not a biggie. At the moment, there is still plenty of work being done to our redesigned www.thetimesnews.com.

It’s still coming, though.

So far response to our new website design has been very positive. Eric Townsend, of the Elon University News Bureau told me via Twitter “Nice design of the website. Much more user friendly! Please pass along my compliments to all involved.” Jamie Freeze via Facebook called it a “Nice fresh look.” Marge Honeycutt Mago also on Facebook also had nice things to say about our different look and especially liked the rotating photo/news feature that dominates the top of the page. She asked if Accent stories — our features could be displayed more prominently. We will do so. In fact, we plan to rotate a lifestyle feature in our rotating function when available.

Here are some other comments I received by email about my recent column on anonymous commenting on websites and our intent to eliminate or diminish those through our new Facebook-based commenting tool. It won’t eliminate all posts that stray over the line, but it will end most — That’s been the case at other Freedom Communications, Inc. newspapers.

Most of the mail I’ve received has endorsed this effort.

Here’s the feedback.

Hi Madison,

I loved your article. There have been several times I’ve wanted to send in something to the Letter to the Editor, bur never did. … I just decided I was better off not submitting anything! I wish more people thought like I do. Keep on writing good articles,

Martha Mobley

Kudos on your decision concerning the third party id’s for online commentaries. Honestly, I believe many have quit using online simply because of the number of anonymous trolls and trash talkers. While I have a third party id I have repeatedly identified myself, particularly in defense of my own submissions to the editors page, and would have no problem doing so for the privilege of discussions on the Times site. The online age has made it entirely too easy for cowards and trolls to avoid the idea that words like actions have consequences, so put up or shut up.

Lance Key

Hello Madison — I really did appreciate your column “A Program for Commenters Anonymous” from Oct 2. I have been just astonished by the mean-spiritedness of comments about our Sister City relationship with Mexico. I think we have done a lot; the chronology of our achievements is out there on website [ http://www.sistercities-burlington.org ]www.sistercities-burlington.org. … We deliberately chose our sister city to be in Mexico to promote goodwill with the Latino community in Alamance County. I am overwhelmed and now exhausted by the negative response.

Well, if the people have to own up to the responsibility of posting their replies with their name on Facebook, I suppose that will tone it down a notch. And maybe another generation from now, they will come to empathize with the plight of those who are less fortunate than themselves.

Beth Powell

Your column about anonymous comments was superbly written, Madison. One of the best pieces you’ve ever done, regardless of the subject matter. And congratulations on your new system.

As the great Gene Weingarten recently wrote, allowing anonymous comments on a well-researched, skillfully written news story is like ordering a steak and “getting a side order of maggots.’

Lee Barnes

The comments should not be eliminated through facebook. Require the bloggers to use a real name that is verified. You could verify the name as being real in the same manner as you do the names in the letters to the editor. In my opinion, using facebook will almost eliminate the comments.

BTW, the rest of the new look is great!!!

Joe A. Tickle

On a good note, congratulations on your new format. Long overdue. Much better layout.

On a bad note however, I do not have a Facebook account and find a requirement of one for comment on stories on your site to be discriminatory.

I am not some old Hoot. I am in the I/T business with a background in Information Security. I find Facebook to be poor in its handling of a person’s information and refuse to get in on the madness. I submit many of my peers also refuse to fall prey to Facebook. You may want to review your stance on this.

If major networks news stories allow comments, I am sure the Times-News will have nowhere near the work of policing their own little small town postings.

Janice Buck

I want to thank all who are taking the time to write to us about our site and any future plans for it. I responded to most by telling them that the design of www.thetimesnews.com remains a work in progress. We have a few tweaks to make that will hopefully make our site even easier to navigate. And we’ll evaluate the online comments during the process as well.

And when the new system goes into place, we’ll probably monitor things pretty closely. There are workarounds for those willing to find them. We plan to work with Facebook to ban abusers pretty quickly.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Coming soon online • Why we do things | 35 Comments »

The program for Commenters Anonymous

October 9th, 2011, 7:20 pm by madisontaylor

My print column from the previous Sunday was about the scourage of the media industry — anonymous online comments. Most in my business never liked the practice. Hopefully, this week, we’ll be rid of it. I had a lot of good feedback on this one from people absolutely tired of that anonymous craptossing contest. Here goes.

—————

Dear Anonymous Online Commenter,

First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Madison Taylor and I’m the editor of the Times-News.

See? How hard was that? Not very — at least from my end anyway. I politely offered a name and a place of employment. I live in Burlington, by the way. I am not ashamed of any of these things — well, not usually. But I tend to own up to it when I am.

And I’ll even go a little further. My name is Madison Taylor of Burlington and I’m the editor of the Times-News and I’m 52 years old. As such I’d like to state for the record that a number of you anonymous online commenters who populate our newspaper’s website are pretty cowardly. Some are jerks. A handful are cowardly jerks.

See how easy it is to state a strong opinion and put a name behind it?

That seems to be a problem for some who post comments on sites operated by news organizations. Roger Creasy, who heads our interactive programs here at the Times-News, tells me that on many other websites normal people converse sans real names and do so without rancor, without hostility, without profanity, without racism, without sexism, without misogyny, without venom, without bile, without hatred, bigotry, obscenity and lame off-color jokes. I hear a few can even form complete sentences.

Yes, in this world there are apparently pleasant anonymous commenters — people who get along reasonably well together, make salient and thought-provoking observations and subtly kick out those who refuse to play nice. I believe this to be true because Roger says so. He’s among the most honest people I know.

But he also tells me this isn’t the case on news sites. In what has to be one of the most depressing developments in my history with this business, sites operated by newspapers and TV stations are vast territories of free-range meanness based on everything from politics to place of birth to personal appearance in an accompanying photograph. And because our sites were desperate years ago to build an audience, we allowed people to cloak themselves in anonymity and opened this rather appalling door into this bleakness of the human spirit.

Bad on us. We have much higher standards for our print product. Our stories don’t use anonymous sources and letters to the Open Forum have to be signed with a name and place of residence before we’ll publish them.

In fairness, though, many more optimistic media editors had envisioned the type of situation Roger speaks of — a cyberland of thinking people bound by a common cause to have intelligent discussion and debate about the issues of the day. More cynical media leaders had a darker view. They predicted an apocalypse generated by the more sinister natures of mankind when allowed to hide and lob grenades. They foresaw long legal entanglements and the destruction of the information industry.

The truth, as is often the case, collides somewhere toward the middle. Some anonymous posting actually allows people to make important comments without fear of retribution from employers, government, law enforcement or even friends. And anonymous comments certainly haven’t destroyed civilization, merely eroded it to a shameful level. I’ll note a story by the Associated Press last week concerning a new poll indicating that young people have become jaded by racist and sexist slurs they read online and no longer see them as offensive. Political correctness needed to swing back a touch, but not that far.

All of this blather, though is merely prelude to some actual news. Starting this month — and the tentative date is Oct. 11, the Times-News will get rid of the third-party commenting tool now in use on thetimesnews.com. The blogging system that allowed people to sign up without giving a name will be gone. The function that allowed people to comment on stories without stating who they really are won’t be there, either. The story commenting function will be replaced by one connected to Facebook, the social networking behemoth.

After the new system starts, people will need a Facebook account to post comments online. It will not give anyone access to your Facebook information or the ability to see what is on your profile wall if your account is private. Users will have to provide their name. Sure, there are some ways to skirt the system, but it’s a lot more difficult and hopefully not worth the time or risking the wrath of Facebook.

So I suppose this is a Dear John or Jane letter of sorts. Suffice it to say I’m not all that choked up about saying goodbye. Glad I never met you. And if I did, please don’t tell me. I’m better off not knowing.

But I am very eager to say hello to those who are interested in posting comments on our website under their real names. That thing about creating a cyberland of thinking people bound by a common cause to have intelligent discussion and debate about the issues of the day may be within our reach after all.

Call me an optimist.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Column collection • Why we do things | 5 Comments »

Tweetly, tweetly, tweetly-deee …

January 24th, 2011, 11:06 pm by madisontaylor

The social media landscape is too big for us.

The latest example is the furor over Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Cutler and whether he was indeed too injured to play the second half Sunday in the NFC championship game loss to the Green Bay Packers.

Cutler, who was having a miserable game, limped off the field at the half and played one series in the third quarter before taking himself out of the game. Immediately NFL players past and present took to their Twitter accounts to question Cutler’s heart, guts, soul, spirit, demeanor, dinnertime wine selection, facial tics and whether he uses feminine hygiene products. The rough comments came in the moment, with no real thought and no real facts. It was the kind of stuff guys say in bars to other guys while they’re doing the ritual football male bonding thing.

Sunday night it turned into a national story. Monday it became an outcry and all-day fodder on sports talk radio. Lost amid it all was the report that Cutler was indeed injured, suffering a torn MCL. Now, though he has to repair an image that was shattered via social media through no real fault of his own.

Sadly in all that blather, no one was debating the right issue, namely whether there is any merit at all to having the ability to say anything that comes to mind for public consumption merely because we can.

Like I said, this social media stuff is way too big for us.

I pondered this a lot on Monday. As technology goes, Facebook and Twitter are still relatively new aspects of the comunications minefield. In some ways it’s proved invaluable in terms of reporting turmoil, disaster, political upheaval and other impossible-to-get stories from dingy corners of the world. Sometimes, though, it’s a toy and a pretty stupid one when operated by people who are, well, pretty stupid.

With every new technological development throughout history there has been a learning curve about how to use the medium correctly. For the most part, though, we’re talking about moveable type, radio and TV. All took some adjustment, but relatively few had access to it as users. Those media had time and room to grow at a pace its potential users and audience could handle.

The internet changed all that.

People now have unfettered access to mechanisms that can spread information — and misinformation, not to mention bile, hatred, bad jokes, random observations, pornographic images — at lightning speed. It’s quick, volatile and no one worries too much about the outcome. They should

Never in the history of mankind have so many had the power to reach such a wide audience and offer so little to say.

On the plus side, it’s fast. Much faster than common sense, as it turns out.

Consider:

It took 50 years for radio to reach an audience of 50 million.

It took TV just over 10 years to reach an audience of 50 million.

It took the Internet four years to reach an audience of 50 million.

It took Facebook nine months to reach 100 million subscribers.

I just saw a note online. Facebook now has 600 million users.

So yes, this social media thing is way too big for us. And at the rate we’re going, it’ll be impossible for us to catch up.

But the bottom line is, it’s not going anywhere. It’s up to us to grow up.

Good luck with that.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Just thinking out loud • Let's talk sports • Uncategorized | Post a Comment »

Asinine or 10

September 26th, 2010, 8:45 pm by madisontaylor

Message boards found on Internet websites aren’t for the faint-hearted. They’re full of anonymous bombast, wild rants, egocentric ramblings, incorrect information, misanthropy and bigotry.

If that all sounds bad, well, it is.

The good news, though, is that based on consistent observation over the past three-plus years, the number of people who actually populate those areas seem to be few in number. Often it’s the same agitated handful of chronic malcontents making comment after comment with no interest in reasonable debate, decency or accuracy.

That’s why we have nagging doubts that there’s much need to move the scheduled trial of an Alamance County man charged with second-degree murder and drunken driving in connection to an accident that killed a motorcyclist on N.C. 87. This week, the attorney for Acie Terry Moore asked the court to move his client’s trial away from the courthouse in Graham, citing comments posted on stories about the case on the Times-News website.

Defense attorney Jim Joyner has filed a motion asking that the case be shifted to neighboring Orange County. He contends that anonymous posters on www.thetimesnews.com show that bias here against his client is too strong. He also argues that the district attorney’s office is reacting to public opinion by altering charges in the case to satiate Internet posters.

Whether there is a groundswell of public opinion in Alamance County against his client — who has four previous driving while impaired convictions (1985, 1986, 1994 and 1997) — is highly debatable. An Internet message board is hardly a scientific sample. It’s largely the cellar where unseen rock-throwers dwell. And to be honest, in today’s media market it’s a better bet that most in an Alamance County jury pool will have never heard of the case at all.

Whether Joyner’s second contention is true or not is tougher to gauge. Under a Times-News story published on Aug. 17, online commenters called for harsher charges than the original felony death by motor vehicle. On Aug. 30, District Attorney Pat Nadolski’s office charged Moore with second-degree murder.

We tend to believe that public officials have better sense than to be swayed by the braying of anonymous people online and that Nadolski’s office looked over the facts of the case — including the four prior DWI charges against Moore — before reaching a decision about more substantial charges.

That makes far more sense.

Posted in: About those online comments ... • Just thinking out loud | 1 Comment »