Photo courtesy of conservativecartoons.comWatch what you say or else...According to a recent Pacific Business News' article, news organizations like Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are suspending online reader comments on political stories. It would've helped if the article stated specific slanderous offenses. But then again, what's the standard of 'offensive' nowadays?
Readers can no longer be critical at a time during the election season, where they should be more critical than ever. Among reading "Go Palin!" and "Dipstick/Lipstick '08" comments, I've seen a mixed bag of the profound and persuasive, and others just biased without factual backup. All found under campaign trail blogs, where a journalist and readers can be opinionated!
True, a commentor doesnt' need to follow journalistic ethics and can say whatever the hell he wants, and it's easier for everyone to lose their privilege than to for a website to regulate each and every post. But cutting off the public opinion just decreases readership and interest. If people can't express their opinions, then why should they care to vote in a DEMOCRATIC society? Ideas?
Readers can no longer be critical at a time during the election season, where they should be more critical than ever. Among reading "Go Palin!" and "Dipstick/Lipstick '08" comments, I've seen a mixed bag of the profound and persuasive, and others just biased without factual backup. All found under campaign trail blogs, where a journalist and readers can be opinionated!
True, a commentor doesnt' need to follow journalistic ethics and can say whatever the hell he wants, and it's easier for everyone to lose their privilege than to for a website to regulate each and every post. But cutting off the public opinion just decreases readership and interest. If people can't express their opinions, then why should they care to vote in a DEMOCRATIC society? Ideas?
1 comment:
"If people can't express their opinions, then why should they care to vote in a DEMOCRATIC society?" But the story you cite isn't a story about some Jeffersonian dream of democracy in all its raucous, vibrant diversity (of opinion), nor is it about the Orwellian suppression of that free speech. It's about the thuggish, intolerant howl of the mob---the Three Minutes' Hate (1984) that supplants reason with unreason, fact with baseless allegation. Comment trolls who make intelligent impossible are the enemies of democracy, not its noisy poster children.
Too many unsupported assertions, too many unanswered questions, here. Examples: "But then again, what's the standard of 'offensive' nowadays?" What does this mean? Are you saying we're living in the age of moral relativism? If so, say so, and hit us with some specific examples. "Readers can no longer be critical at a time during the election season, where they should be more critical than ever." Well, were they being critical? What exactly do you mean by "critical"? Pointed argument, well supported by evidence, that truth-squads the candidates and/or the media? If so, fine and well, but again: can you point us toward any examples of commenters doing that? Such links would have strengthened your argument. Also, if you're going to refer to comments that are "profound and persuasive, and others just biased without factual backup," you must link to the specific comments in question, not just the front door to site.
One last thought: "But cutting off the public opinion just decreases readership and interest." You mkay be right, but can you cite any studies, polls, or hitcount data that substantiates this assertion?
Post a Comment