Missing the Point
Yes, a lot of web discussions (and gopher discussions beforehand) feature more heat than enlightenment, and passionate debates often use raw language. But if, as Washington Post editor Jim Brady says, the newspaper website is promoting debate, there will be disagreements, and if the debate is on the web, it will not always be pretty. The Post is facing the comments problem of any popular website welcoming public comments on issues of the day: As long as the public is profane, so will too be the comments. Passports and credit cards will not make for a better debate, nor create politer citizens.
CNET reports
Brady, executive editor of The Washington Post’s online division, said during a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood conference here that he would like to see a technology that could identify people who violate site standards–and if need be–automatically kick them off for good.
Brady has a notable history with this issue and I’ll get to that. First, his position must be made clear. In an interview following the panel discussion, Brady said he doesn’t want people’s personal information for any other reason but to hold them accountable for what they post. He said he’s not–as he has been accused by some–an enemy of free speech. He just wants to oversee a site where readers engage in civil discourse and debate without fear of it degenerating into a “back alley environment.”
More
Brady is correct that a few vocal and rude comments can derail a discussion. Of course, the Washington Post could put together a moderating system for comments. There are a number of examples on the internet.
Hard to believe that he would go to such lengths to limit discussion, when moderators have been doing just that for many years. Looks like a Luddite solution; anyone aware of the rules of the web would see this as going to ridiculous extremes. Is this really the executive editor of the Washington Post’s online division?
Yes, it really is. The Post has been slammed by comments after hosting a few controversial folk on chats. Perfectly predictable reaction if one were familiar with blog/internet culture. The Post could even ban profanity or use Salon’s method of highlighting editor’s choices among the comments. It’s more a matter of adapting to a culture and shaping it, rather than trying to dam it.