Andy Schotz makes a great point
If you haven't read National Ethics Committee Chairman Andy Schotz' column in this month's edition of Quill magazine, please do so.
In a nut shell, Andy challenges what is becoming a common practice: newsrooms are permitting anonymous posts on their Web sites.
He writes:
"The standards should be high. Anonymity may be granted, in a news story or for a letter to the editor, if there’s a compelling reason. We explain why.
"With online comments, we do the opposite. We let people hide behind a screen name and hurl insults, which we may or may not scrub from the Web site, depending on whether someone has noticed or complained.
"The result is a lower level of discourse. Amusement and rants replace reasoned debate. And, by setting up this process, we solicit and encourage anonymous nonsense and barbs. We’re responsible."
And then there is this sobering thought from Philip Meyer, a professor at the University of North Carolina, who recently joined a debate about journalists and certification:
"I'm not sure we can count on the Miltonian self-righting principle for truth to emerge on its own. The lies move too fast now."
Andy and Professor Meyer make great points -- and I had to laugh about the timing of their wise remarks. See for yourself some of the anonymous trash-talking that as broken out about me on a previous thread -- or two. I can take it on the chin -- or I never would have agreed to serve as SPJ's president.
But really. It's amazing how chicken some people are. And when they're supposed to be advocates of responsible journalism, their anonymous posts are downright spineless. As Andy stated, those operating from the shadows commonly throw barbs and hurl insults while also dragging down the level of discourse. Some of the rants might be funny (I cracked up after one poster used the name recallchristinetatum@corporatetool.com), but they don't add anything of true value to a debate. When facts are screwed up -- as is too often the case -- there is no accountability.
We don't stand for that kind of junk on our pages or our newscasts. Why are we lowering this bar for the online world? We should embrace instant communication. But instant and anonymous aren't the same thing.
With all of this said, there have been times when people have posted anonymously on this blog and, in the process, have added valuable insight. I still sometimes think about the women who chimed in to discuss the challenges of balancing motherhood and a career in journalism. I think about the young woman, M, who genuinely feared any questions and remarks she posted could get her in trouble at work.
Unfortunately, though, the Ms of the world are increasingly rare.
Andy's column has made me think about SPJ, of course. We should set a high standard we encourage all news organizations to follow. Perhaps it's time for us to consider being more pointed in our ethics code about discouraging anonymous posts online. Perhaps SPJ should open its message boards only to those who submit their names -- or log in through some other mechanism so that we know they're actual members. Just a thought.
What are yours? And if you post anonymously, you're a goof.