Spring Break
Put the trolls to bed
Why Internet comments kill polite discourse
Lara Oliver
Issue date: 10/7/08 Section: Opinion
We've all been there. You're reading an article in a magazine or a newspaper and you think, "Oh my God, this person is an idiot!"
Just a few short years ago, the way many people would act on this realization would be to get up, grab a piece of paper, and send a letter to the editor of the publication entailing their thoughts. You'd have your real name and address attached to your opinion and, if you were lucky, it would be printed in the newspaper/magazine so you could show all your friends how justified you were in your opinion of that idiot writer.
Well, not today. After seeing the popularity of commenting on sites like Blogger and Xanga, major publications felt it necessary to implement their own commenting features on the web version of their print editions.
From major newspapers like The New York Times to our own paper The East Carolinian, Internet comments have become almost as necessary as the articles.
But are they really saying anything?
The idea of Internet comments, and the philosophy that is espoused by people who support them, claims that they allow for an immediate discourse on the article connected to the article itself.
Theoretically, an article about Governor Sarah Palin and the current Trooper Gate scandal would turn into a debate on the problems inherent in running for national office while in the midst of an investigation - and whether that should affect someone's bid for vice presidency.
Instead, it turns into a flurry of four letter words being slung either at the author of the article, fellow commenters or Mrs. Palin herself.
This is obviously not the polite discourse that implementing Internet comments intended to encourage. By allowing for an immediate, gratifying response to the "Oh my God, this person is an idiot" impulse, many readers no longer feel the need to bother with the slightly longer process of writing a letter to the editor in order to vent their frustration.
Personally, I don't see the point to keeping Internet comments on sites for newspapers and magazines. In the context of social sites like LiveJournal and Blogger, it's usually someone you know writing on your site, and you can attach their name to their opinion. With magazines and newspapers, it's random readers without much attachment to the article.
Just a few short years ago, the way many people would act on this realization would be to get up, grab a piece of paper, and send a letter to the editor of the publication entailing their thoughts. You'd have your real name and address attached to your opinion and, if you were lucky, it would be printed in the newspaper/magazine so you could show all your friends how justified you were in your opinion of that idiot writer.
Well, not today. After seeing the popularity of commenting on sites like Blogger and Xanga, major publications felt it necessary to implement their own commenting features on the web version of their print editions.
From major newspapers like The New York Times to our own paper The East Carolinian, Internet comments have become almost as necessary as the articles.
But are they really saying anything?
The idea of Internet comments, and the philosophy that is espoused by people who support them, claims that they allow for an immediate discourse on the article connected to the article itself.
Theoretically, an article about Governor Sarah Palin and the current Trooper Gate scandal would turn into a debate on the problems inherent in running for national office while in the midst of an investigation - and whether that should affect someone's bid for vice presidency.
Instead, it turns into a flurry of four letter words being slung either at the author of the article, fellow commenters or Mrs. Palin herself.
This is obviously not the polite discourse that implementing Internet comments intended to encourage. By allowing for an immediate, gratifying response to the "Oh my God, this person is an idiot" impulse, many readers no longer feel the need to bother with the slightly longer process of writing a letter to the editor in order to vent their frustration.
Personally, I don't see the point to keeping Internet comments on sites for newspapers and magazines. In the context of social sites like LiveJournal and Blogger, it's usually someone you know writing on your site, and you can attach their name to their opinion. With magazines and newspapers, it's random readers without much attachment to the article.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Hmm
posted 10/08/08 @ 1:04 PM EST
The problem with internet forums is that they give immediate and equivalent access to everybody. No degree of intelligence or having researched the facts prior to posting is imposed. (Continued…)
Mark
posted 10/08/08 @ 1:38 PM EST
I think people are turned off by letters to the editor because they never get published. You're assuming the editors are open and unbiased. Most publications are biased one way or the other and their selection of what to print often displays those biases. (Continued…)
Post a Comment