Jill Duman: Anonymous 'flaming' is a cold approach
Back in the day, just a few years ago, people signed their name when they hacked up a hairball of vitriol and sent it off for publication.
Happily for somebody, that is not now the case.
Nowadays, you get to write something, post it anonymously on a Web site – even the Web site of your local paper – and say pretty much whatever you want about anybody you've ever heard about.
This is the dark side of blogging and Internet comments – one that's making headlines in the mainstream press, thanks to Rosemary Port, a 29-year-old Fashion Institute of Technology student who used a free account provided by Google to call Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen an "old hag," a "ho" (not an agricultural implement) and a "skank" (a description you wouldn't want applied to your girlfriend, your mother or your daughter).
The story is getting a lot of media play because Cohen successfully sued in a Manhattan court to get Google to publicly unmask Port as the anonymous blogger. Now Port wants to sue Google for $15 million, claiming the company breached its duty to protect her anonymous slams.
All this would be pretty much grist for the gossip mills, but it underscores a point that comes up often in discussions of 21st century manners: When did anonymous flaming become the social norm? Most publications have always had a letters forum designed to open the issues of the day up to disagreement and debate. Letter writers have always been encouraged to disagree with the newspaper or magazine's articles, editorials – or even with each other.
But in the past, you had to sign your name so that the entire community would know who you were. This practice had the effect of keeping discourse polite. It's hard to call someone a "ho" or a "skank," then wave to her at church. It's also hard to have the world know that you called someone nasty names, which is as it should be.
Once upon a time, it was even more difficult to publicly label someone a liar or thief. That meant you had to take care when taking aim at someone's reputation. When I was a newspaper editor and community reporter, readers regularly gave us "tips" about who was up to no good. Reporters checked out tips to see if they could be substantiated, but they didn't publish accusations just because someone picked up the phone or blasted off an e-mail to dish the dirt.
Taking public responsibility for your views also gave other readers some context for the opinions expressed by letter writers. Your identity let others know if you were the political opponent, ex-spouse or disgruntled employee of the person you were criticizing. And that's useful information, too.
Nowadays, most publications – including The Bee – retain a letters section but also allow readers to comment using a Web-based pseudonym, a practice that is accepted all over the Internet.
Anonymity may prompt some great revelations, but it also encourages name-calling, lying and outright meanness. It's easy to be tough when you don't have to be yourself. It's a much harder task to stand up, identify yourself and state your views.
That's one reason why public boards and commissions ask speakers to give their name. That way, there is a record of who is speaking so that the rest of us can know who is saying what.
If the local developer is speaking in favor of a proposed project, that's one piece of information. If the local environmentalist is supporting it, that's another.
There's also a difference between expressing an opinion and attacking an opponent's character or thoughts. Somehow, that line is easier to cross in the invisible world of the blogosphere, where no one knows your name.
Your workplace doesn't allow name-calling and accusations in the company boardroom or break room.
Your local school probably wouldn't permit your neighbor's kid to call your child a "poo-poo head" at lunch.
We, as a society, still frown on face-to-face negative discourse.
Why should we accept it electronically?
Jill Duman: Anonymous 'flaming' is a cold approach - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee
No comments:
Post a Comment