A message to lordsnooty and the 69ers
ANONYMITY tends to breed spite, contempt and malice or, in its least malevolent form, the ability to find one’s own anodyne ramblings interesting.
More worryingly, anonymity can also generate a ludicrous sense of self-importance and relevance that sometimes borders on the delusional.
And yet with the digital age, which we have been told for so long is the future (print media has been threatened with certain death within five years for the last 15) now upon us, anonymity has been allowed to run riot. But this will, inevitably, change. In fact, the backlash of online anonymity is already being felt.
Earlier this year, as reported by the FT, the Australian standards board ruled that companies are responsible for “policing defamatory or misleading comments posted by users on corporate Facebook pages”. The move was triggered in part by that country’s Advertising Standards Bureau reviewing the Facebook page for Diageo’s Smirnoff vodka.
The ad and its product’s “purity” all too predictably elicited anonymous comments that were sexually suggestive and possibly obscene, which comments the bureau deemed were part of the advertising. Placing the burden of responsibility and policing of online advertising suddenly doesn’t make it the attractively inexpensive option it once was and could have a “chilling effect on advertisers’ willingness to use social media”.
And take broadcasting. I have been spellbound by the drama The Newsroom (M-Net). It’s a long time since we’ve seen a genuine drama — I say genuine because the raison d’être of the lead character, Will McAvoy, the anchor, managing editor, onetime war correspondent and seemingly last true newsman of a US network news show, is to broadcast only the facts and informed opinion.
He balks at the corporate sell-out of news programming in which ratings and sponsors call the shots, so he asks tough questions and expects tough answers. He would rather report the news accurately last than be the first to break a rumour. Tweets are not considered a source. But obliged to read and respond to, on air, live, some of the online drivel every night, McAvoy has to suffer the indignity of reading comments from lollypoplollypop and
It is policy to include online comments on air. “How many times did Walter Cronkite have to say ‘lollypoplollypop’?”
SurrenderDorothy. But then he receives a death threat on that most pernicious “right to reply”, the online comment facility, in which his home address is given. It’s the stuff of nightmares for those brave enough to put their name and face to their jobs in journalism.
McAvoy rails and insists on something I should imagine many newsrooms do, or will do soon: that no more anonymous comments be posted. He wants the name, gender, occupation and age-range of everyone posting any comment on line — or they don’t get to post it.
A colleague recently told me some papers around the world are already doing away with online anonymous comments, due to their being pointless, offtopic, fatuous, inane, but also sometimes offensive.
McAvoy is told it is policy to include online comments on air as they are “populist”.
Since when did “populist” mean “moronic”? Or uneducated or cowardly? Or threatening?
“How many times did Walter Cronkite have to say ‘lollypoplollypop’ in his career?” McAvoy cries.
A quick look at news-content websites around the world gave me this delightful list of user names (I have heard them referred to as loser names): UncleOz, insertfunnyusername, dofeatdog, RandomGreatness, slowboat, KingHenry007, RabbleRouser, TheGrifter, headtheball, Buckster69, Sunshine69, etherealdude and humanoidmale. At least some suggest a gender, though there is no way of proving it correct.
With the advent of e-mail the world of communication changed, indubitably for the better, especially for those whose jobs depend on fast and accurate written information. Most papers now give the e-mail address of writers and have very active letters pages.
Feedback has never flowed as freely as it does now, so those who still feel the need to hide behind lordsnooty, dissidentjunk, enemyofthestate, spamshredder and fuggles — all of these from the august BBC’s website — should know your days are, hopefully, numbered.
If it’s worth saying, surely it’s worth putting your name to? After all, those of us who share our thoughts with you, and occasionally bare more than perhaps we should, have no problem doing it. If you do, though, I suggest you shut the fuggles69 up.