Expect to see campaign blogs by the candidates, but meanwhile partisans are attempting to score points for their choices through comments on the few blogs that are still publishing daily. Plaintalker so far has let nearly all comments appear, in part so that readers can see the spectrum of views. However, some posters seem to think the blog is their personal soapbox for thinly-disguised campaign talk.
The issue of whether or not to require posters to use their real names is one as old as blogs and online forums. Some bloggers only post signed comments. Some don't post any. The Courier News recently instituted a policy of posting through Facebook, after which comments dropped down to a trickle. A hot issue yesterday had only five comments, while the same story attracted more than 50 comments online in the Star-Ledger.
I have suggested that the more rabid commenters take their rhetoric over to the S-L's online forum, which was so busy during the Gallon controversy. Duke it out over there, folks, and leave blog comments to the issues, was my thought.
However, before I make my executive decision on commenting, I would like to hear from readers how they feel about imposing stricter rules on comments. Where should the line be drawn? Would you rather see the gamut of comments or only the polite, reasoned ones? Let me know.
--Bernice
There should be no limits on comments other than your common sense about those that may be slanderous. Once you decide to edit the voice of your readers, whomever they may be, you may as well stop asking for their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI believe you have Editorial rights, as it is YOUR Blog Bernice.
ReplyDeleteYou have censored me 2x and my comment back to you was that I respected your decision.
Polite works at tea...not politics. Let em roll and keep your eraser handy!
Commenters should have to use first names and last names optional. There is a lot of hatred and anger if you make a comment someone doesn't like, so for safer commenting, first names should be required.
ReplyDeleteBob Bolmer
Sorry about the second comment. Facebook is a disasterous requirement for posting comments. I have complained to the Courier about this many times to no avail. I guess someone there is getting paid big bucks to require Facebook. I don't have a Facebook account now and do not think it's fair to require one to voice your opinion.
ReplyDeleteBob Bolmer
I think that people should be required to post using Facebook or Google ID. It does cut down on the anonymous attacks. Even those of us that would be willing to post with our real identities are reluctant to do so because we know that we will be attacked by other people that are posting anonymously. I know that some people do not want to have to subscribe to a service like Facebook in order to voice their opinion, but you had to subscribe to Blogger in order publish your blog. The least they could do is establish a Google ID so that they can post comments on your blog. I suggest that all Plainfield blogs do the same. That would go a long way towards more civil discourse.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see the requirement that comments be signed as it would keep everyone on the up and up. But unfortunately it would stifle the debate and the debate at times is important.
ReplyDeleteThough it doesn't seem fair when someone who signs their name is attacked by someone who doesn't. And signing your name with just your first name, or an alias, is as if you didn't sign it at all.
And the name calling needs to be stopped. It adds nothing to the debate and it disenfranchises the community. As Councilman Storch advocated for in the last ward 2/3 race - criticize the act, not the person.
jim spear
I would prefer to read well-reasoned, thoughtful postings that help further the debate about issues of importance. The Courier's policy seemed rather draconian and, while it has eliminated the vitriol, it has also stifled debate. As Bob Bolmer commented, not everyone has or wants a Facebook account. I guess I come down on the side of Rob and suggest that you use your common sense and good judgement, as you have in the past.
ReplyDeleteI am running for Mayor of
ReplyDeleteplainfield this year
Not so long ago one of your frequent bloggers accused those of us who have criticized the PMUA as KKK members with hoods. He further commented, " We know who you are". There is little question that the comment was meant as a threat. One can only speculate as to whether the level of the threat was casual rhetoric, or something more sinister. That said, I think that you should apply your own good judgment to editing, encouraging contributors to identify themselves, but not make identification mandatory. Bill Kruse
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael--you have good judgment and use it. As for the rabid ones, perhaps the rest of us need to get vaccinated--Union County is running clinics for this all over. Just kidding of course!
ReplyDeleteHa ha, 10:14AM! Very subtle!
ReplyDeleteBernice, the truth is not always pleasant and while a post may offend some I believe you should post each comment as received, including the anonymous ones. If someone posts something that is truly threatening the comment could always be used as evidence if needed. I know it’s your blog but if people can’t exercise the First Amendment then there is no point in having a comment section on your blog. If I decide to sign my comment as Sally Lou would your reader know who I am?
ReplyDeleteRobin Bright
Hi, Sally Lou! I like your ideas on this and other things we both know about. I do think many folks feel the need to protect or at least insulate themselves from reprisals or other nastiness, and I respect their anonymity. But our community is under so much stress at the moment, in so many different arenas, that one thing we don't need is a lot of ugly and many times pointless comments to plow through. Life's too short for any of us to burn ourselves up with anger and hate. Of course I'm for free expression, but I think there are people who might want to reconsider their immediate need to blow off stem and inflict their anger on the rest of us.
DeletePlease give me a call when you can (I know how busy you are and how hard you are working on our current MRMC woes)--let's talk. 908-668-1149.
Thanks and blessings!
Bernice - I am ambivalent about anonymous comments on my blog. Some add to the debate but often, I get politically oriented comments that judge people rather than issues important to Plainfield. Lately, I haven't posted comments.
ReplyDeleteSo I pose a question to anonymous bloggers. Why are you hiding your identities? Are you seeing negative consequences against bloggers or blog commenters for revealing who they are. If yes, please explain for I don't know of any actions taken against those who state their opinions, other than ocassional vociferous disagreement. And what is wrong with that.
Ananymous commenters - please convince me that remaining unknown is helpful to the debate, for I can't help but think otherwise.
Cory Storch
Hi Cory - I signed my name when commenting on your blog a few months back and you didn't post it. . . I must admit you had the courtesy to call me and tell me you weren't going to post it. And if I recall the disagreement wasn't even "vociferous" and my comment was issue oriented and certainly did not judge anyone.
DeleteWhen other's sign their names do you post their comments even if they refrain from judging people but do take aim at issues with an opposing view? As Dan Damon says - it's his blog, his soap box - but you can't have it both ways, or can you?
If a blogger decides to restrict comments to those that sign their names, but then chooses the comments they like, well, I would rather they just closed off the comment section all together - like our party Chairman, Mr Green does. It is well known that he doesn't post comments, so the reader can then choose whether to read his blog or not. I chose not.
jim spear