Is having an online forum worth nasty comments?

By Judi Whetstine

----

Is it important for local citizens and public officials to exercise their First Amendment right to speak publicly on the issues of the day? If so, to what extent should local media try to energize citizen and public leaders' involvement through online exchanges?

Zack Kucharski, Topical Content Manager at The Gazette, said that “5,600 people are registered to comment at The Gazette Online site.” He could not quantify how many of those 5,600 have participated in the 83,000 comments posted since Jan. 1, 2011.

SourceMedia Group, which operates The Gazette and KCRG-TV9, also has topical websites such as government, education, life and outdoors. They include staff news reports, outside group contributions and reader comments. Jeff Tecklenburg, The Gazette's Opinion Page Editor, reported that “about 1,400 people had at least one letter published and more than 2,000 letters (altogether) were published in 2011.”

Yet, SourceMedia Group staff continue to adjust The Gazette and KCRG-TV9 online comments policies because of negative feedback from readers.

Online comments are no longer anonymous. TheGazette.com uses a separate page from the news story as a public forum for posting comments. Its rules of engagement aim to encourage productive comments.

In a Feb. 26 column, Gazette Editor Lyle Muller explained the need for the recent changes. “We hear from many people who find the comments online to be a less than pleasant experience. Most don't like how nasty they feel some of the comments can be even as we try to moderate for relevance and taste, and decide against checking us out at all.

“Others are turned off by the frequent back-and-forth between a handful of commenters. A newsroom committee monitors commenting on our sites and develops recommendations for any changes in how comments are handled.”

An example of negative comments could be found Feb. 29 on a news report that Democrats had walked out of the State House: “Stop your grandstanding and get you're a$$ back to work!” “Typical … wingbat abuse of power.” “Oh for Cripe Sakes. Great way to provide leadership. This country is doomed.”

More constructive comments were posted on the March 14 news story about city traffic camera statistics. They described differing ways to analyze the statistics and offered other options to control accidents. Linn County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden commented from his law enforcement perspective.

On March 20, KCRG-TV9 Online had to disable commenting on the prior night's motorcycle accident in Czech Village because of “personal attacks.”

Tecklenburg confirms that “some people don't want to tangle with other writers and online commenters who will be strongly critical. Some people want to write anonymously online or in letters.” Some may have a “fear of retribution from authorities such as police if they challenge something. They don't want to cause a stir in their neighborhood or with a particular neighbor. They just don't want to risk being the focal point of criticism from other readers.”

Vander Sanden seems to be an exception. He said that “The Gazette Online comments page and letters to the editor are excellent forums for discussing important issues. I would say that elected officials should not be a ‘shrinking violet' and attempt to avoid discussing controversial issues. They have a duty to justify their actions and state their positions on important matters of public concern. Public criticism is part of being a public official and I often learn something from it.”

But how about community organizational, business and labor leaders, professionals and other citizens?

Is it OK to be passive and not participate in the online and print forums because you do not like disagreement? Are there other ways for SourceMedia Group outlets to encourage more productive public participation?

Not using your public voice in the short run defeats Source Media's efforts for serious discussion of your community's long-term issues. Or should the company even try?