tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2379524531306475136.post4468543155788761830..comments2021-11-11T10:04:38.590-08:00Comments on Stationary Nomad: Hiding Behind AnonymityElizabeth Hornbeckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16079257362666121607noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2379524531306475136.post-46693395787289700222010-04-21T09:28:16.624-07:002010-04-21T09:28:16.624-07:00I am truly grateful that Elizabeth has raised, pur...I am truly grateful that Elizabeth has raised, pursued, and documented the seriousness of this problem. Although I "met" her in the Greever-Rice campaign (and am not sure we would recognize each other in person,) I found my way to this blog via her participation in a FaceBook group against comments on articles (different from blogs or fora) in the Columbia Tribune. I read back a ways to see how the issue has started, last summer, and am curious to know whether any progress has been made -- or modifications noted of policies at the Trib -- since that time.<br /><br />Maybe its because I'm a Quaker -- a group that always had a high, possibly overly-scrupulous, regard for Truth; possibly its because of the Quaker "testimony" against "secret societies"... In any case, I have a strong revulsion against anonymity in writing, unless a special case can be made. I have seen Letters to the Editors over the years where it said, parenthetically, "Name Withheld By Request," and presumably an editor made a judgment that this request was justified. We can think of a number of possible good reasons for such a request. Most writers, however, don't require a Witness Protection Program.<br /><br /><br />I heartily believe that the prevalence of anonymous comments and blogs has become a curse. I felt this way back in the days of "BBSs" -- bulletin board systems, when computers & modems were just starting out -- and I resisted using a "Handle"... a carryover from the Citizens Band radio culture. There were some teenagers with testosterone poisoning that made outrageous remarks that I just know they would not have said to my face. <br /><br />I feel it's a basic matter of integrity that people who have an opinion and express it in public should be required to be identified and then stand behind it. Anything else strikes me as scurrilous or cowardly (special circumstances excepted.)<br /><br />Especially in this time of an Obama Administration being viciously attacked by those who tread on the edge of (and in my view implicitly encourage) vile and violent acts, we must look with serious concern at what language is doing to degrade and poison the public discourse. (I trust that readers here have seen enough of this to know what I'm talking about -- examples on request.) Hiding behind the cloak of anonymity is something that allows much of this to happen. <br /><br />Let's keep sharing ideas as to how this can be combatted -- especially in terms of demanding accountability and responsibility from the journalistic profession to encourage civil discourse in a civic society. Really now: why should there ever be a perceived sense of obligation to provide a soapbox to those consumed with hatred and villification?<br /><br />"Freedom of the press is assured to those who own one" (A.J. Liebling) -- the answer to those who are afraid that exercise of a blue pencil by a responsible editor somehow equates to "censorship" as practiced by totalitarian regimes. I am, in fact, a staunch civil libertarian (and proud ACLU member) when it comes to people's right to say stupid, ignorant, hateful, even filthy things. It's just that others have no obligation to help them spread their nonsense.<br /><br />Are you listening, Jim Robertson?<br /><br />Happy to sign my name,<br /> David Hadley Finke<br /> Columbia, MissouriDavid H. Finkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07817925960778922467noreply@blogger.com