I'm glad I'm not the editor of a newspaper right now.
A huge debate has been going on amongst online newspapers in recent months, regarding the sometimes-nasty, racist and libel-filled atmosphere of many of the comments sections of their sites.
Let's face it: some reader comment sections are so bad that poo-flinging monkeys seem dainty and cultured by comparison.
Many frustrated media organizations are now implementing policies where people must sign their real names and/or register to make their identities verifiable in an effort to bring some responsibility and civility to the Internet.
It's a noble intention, but that's like trying to hold a polite tea party in the middle of the aforementioned poo-flinging monkey's cage.
The problem is that online newspapers are flinging the finger of blame solely at anonymously posting users, when a big pile of that blame lies squarely on their own shoulders.
They are misdiagnosing their problem, which has little to do with anonymity and everything to do with a failure to understand how online communities work.
Most online newspapers just turned on their commenting features without first coming up with a plan or meaningful policy for really moderating those comments.
Some consultant, or dude on their web team who wears cool t-shirts told management that comments brought "added value" (a marketing term to be despised along with "low-hanging-fruit" and "synergy") to a newspaper's site - providing another reason to read.
You come for the article, and stay for the interesting discussion, generating repeat visits and more web traffic.
More visits means more money from advertisers.
The only problem is there usually isn't an interesting, or intelligent discussion going on, but rather a flame war filled with rants, personal attacks and most often, outright stupidity.
That's because most newspapers turned on their commenting software and then promptly left the room, figuring readers would police the forums themselves (flagging inappropriate comments by other users) and basically letting the discussion take care of itself.
When has letting a mob of anonymous people take control ever seemed like a good idea?
If you opened a school and didn't staff it with teachers or a principal, but left the students to their own devices for months hoping they would educate themselves, would you be surprised to find it ended up like some modern version of Lord of the Flies?
Just as a newspaper wouldn't blindly publish letters to the editor, its online version shouldn't let users post whatever they want willy-nilly in attempt to fit in with all the other cool online sites offering the new pseudo-journalism.
A newspaper, even its online incarnation, is not a blog, and vice-versa.
To be a trusted source, a newspaper has to uphold and adhere to standards of ethics and professionalism that most blogs, ireporters and web sites simply ignore.
So, just like someone reads and vets all those letters to the editor for libelous, hate-filled or otherwise inappropriate statements, so too should every comment be moderated before it hits their web portal.
The moderators also need to be actual people who participate in the conversation, not just wielders of the "delete" button. They welcome new users, enforce the local rules, and moderate the brawls as needed.
But having a dedicated moderator costs money, and newspapers aren't exactly known for being big spenders, so the majority will unfortunately continue to put the onus of online responsibility on you, the user.
The only other option to moderating the comments is to get rid of commenting altogether on their online sites.
But no matter what individual online papers decide, you can be sure of one thing; it'll likely generate a lot of debate from readers meaning even more comments are going to get posted.
I'm glad I'm not an editor.
