SIX MONTHS AGO, we launched a new version of our emporiagazette.com Web site. One feature that has received much community discussion is the ability for readers to post comments about stories.
Our goal with this feature was to encourage insightful discussions about community issues.
But what has developed has been a forum for people to make negative posts bashing the town and people. Articles about a car driving into the front of the Somiali restaurant and a Tyson worker dying with an active case of tuberculosis have sparked the most spirited discussions.
We want people to be able to post on The Gazette Web site and have thoughtful discussions on community issues, but using the newspaper’s site to make random attacks on people is not OK.
We hope the community realizes that this Web site extends beyond our community and is really a bulletin board to the world. We have posted online news for 10 years and the site is heavily viewed by businesses and people wanting to locate to Emporia as well as people who want to stay in touch with their former home.
We have to wonder what kind of impression is left by the negative posts.
Our staff is looking into ways of handling the negative posting issue and we hope to bring some balance to the posts.
In the meantime, we hope posters will use some restraint and we encourage positive posters to join in the discussion.
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
Mr. Walker
I think I understand some of your concern. I saw the comment thread you spoke about. It shouldn't have been made an issue of race, but unfortunately some did. I commented on the piece and expressed my view that we have a public safety problem that should not be swept under the rug.
I hope you're not saying that people shouldn't be commenting on community problems at all. Are you saying we should ignore the problems? If so, I think the Gazette is doing its readers a disservice. There are problems here and the sooner we admit them the sooner we can fix them. Doing otherwise is perpetuating the status-quo.
The other thing that cannot be done is to squelch public discourse. If the Gazette does that it will be a way of saying that the newspaper's opinions and ideas are the only ones that really matter here in Emporia.
I've seen the portrait of Teddy Roosevelt on prominent display in the main office at the Gazette. As memory serves me, it was Teddy who was known as the trust buster and fought against monopolies all his political life. I suspect he would be against your or your staff being the sole arbiters and determiners of Emporia's public opinion.
I believe the Gazette has a solemn obligation to not only present its own views, but also publish those it does not like. Stifling the discourse borders on being dangerous and destructive to the public square.
I've often had the discussions with Pat Kelley and Scott Rochat about freedom of the press. They know I'd be the first one down to protect their right to publish if someone in the public arena tried to squelch them. I expect the same thing from the Gazette in return.
I don't expect you,Pat Kelley, Scott Rochat, or anyone else down at 517 Merchant to be the sole gatekeepers of public thought and discourse. If that's what you were expressing in your piece I assure you that I will be your most ardent foe!
Phil Dillon
April 11, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
The Gazette is just asking for CIVIL discourse in place of the mindless, vitriolic bashing that has been occurring in some threads. People who can't play nicely, whatever their opinion, should stay home.
April 11, 2007 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Joe (anonymous) says...
Great! Now the gazette wants to promote censorship of all things! If the articles do not use profanity or profane comments, they should be left to stand. I want a paper that is aggressive in the community and listens to the public voice. Instead of seeing the negative, perhaps you should see the need for action. Our paper should be about issues concerning the community and not a false advertisement to others that we haven't any problems. I challenge you Mr. Walker to fight for this town's survival. Become the real voice of the community in which you were raised. Don't always be politically correct and safe. There was another person in your family tree that was not afraid to stand up, fight, and be held accountable. Honor his memory.
April 11, 2007 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
I agree that people should play nicely, but not everyone does. Not only that, I've seen some folks make what I felt were reasonable comments, but were accused by others of not playing nicely. History is full of examples of this. For instance, the powers that be thought that Jesus and John the Baptist didn't play nice. The powers that be thought the prophet Jeremiah didn't play nice. When people say things llike, "the axe is laid to the root" or "Woe be unto you blind guides" they tend to be unpopular. The powers that be in the British Empire didn't like what Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and our other founding fathers had to say about taxation without represetnation and the tyranny of King George.
I think I understand the difference between playing nicely and being vitriolic, but I've always found it much better to allow the free expression of ideas, whether I've liked them or not. I spent 8 years in the military defending the right of free expression. In a sense I defended the right of protestors back in the United States to call me and others who served in Vietnam baby killers. The first amendment to our constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and petition. There are some who abuse those rights, but the solution to the problem they create would never be to abandon the principles that have served us all so well for over two centuries.
April 11, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sciguy (anonymous) says...
If you expect 100% civil discourse on a public internet discussion board, then you have apparently ignored the past twelve or fourteen years of popular public internet usage.
Either switch to a moderation type system (such as Slashdot) or have an editor approve all comments. Unfortunately, in the latter method, you will have an editor deciding whose comments are "inappropriate". Perhaps we don't agree with vitriolic comments about Somalians, but do we have a right to silence those opinions in public?
April 11, 2007 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flinthills (anonymous) says...
Public discourse about issues is the purpose of a newspaper, especially those issues that are uncomfortable or unpopular to confront. What bothers me about the attacks that are regularly appearing in the online comments is that they are anonymous. Most newspapers do not publish letters to the editor that are unsigned. It's easy to speculate or write horrible things about individuals and groups when you don't have to put your name on it.
April 11, 2007 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malachi22x (anonymous) says...
flinthills has a good point. Let the users of this forum be responsible for their remarks by requiring their real name. That is all it would take to give this forum real credibility. Phil Dillon is a good example of an insightful and responsible forum user. ‘Emporia haters’ and the others may then be inclined to be more thoughtful and insightful with their comments. It is the anoninimity of this forum that propagates the bashing and negative postings.
April 11, 2007 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
I, too, have posted on the public forums. I use my real name and last initial, I have nothing to hide--but then again, I've been posting on internet bulletin boards for a long time and there really is such a thing as Net Etiquette.
I do not agree with the Gazette that readers should be censored....and I'm sort of shocked that a newspaper, of all things, is considering that. However, I understand that if there are violent and/or threatening comments or comments including swear words, then get rid of them--people who do that just cheapen their argument.
Also, I am one who no longer lives in Emporia but it's my hometown and I feel that I have a great interest in what is going on there since a majority of my family still lives there. Just in the short time that the Gazette's bulletin boards have come around, I am shocked at all the hatred, blatant racism and lack of respect for fellow humans in this town--this is not where I grew up (is it?). However, there is a HUGE amount of anger towards the city government and city politics and I really think that's worth writing about, whether it's in an article from a Gazette staff member or if it's from someone in the general public.
Maybe, if the elders who are now in the city government would get online and read the things that the voting public has to say, they would wake up.
JMO. (That's "just my opinion" for those of you needing some Net Etiquette).
Melissa
April 11, 2007 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wifeandmother (anonymous) says...
I made the comment in a post where I stated I thought another poster was being prejudiced. The poster and I then had an online dialogue, which I am sorry to say, deteriorated very quickly. Probably if we were using our own names this would not have happened.
I am concerned, however, if I do use my name and enter a comment disagreeing with another person what that person may do. I do not want someone showing up at my door threatening my children and myself. It does appear there are some militant posters here in our community.
April 11, 2007 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malachi22x (anonymous) says...
If you use real names, you get rid of all of the weasels. Phill Dillon initiated this thread with a discerning, yet thoughtful, response to Chris Walker’s article. I don’t think Chris is going to throw bricks at his house. That is what happens when there is responsibility for your words. The militant posters are only here with their anonymity.
April 11, 2007 at 9:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sciguy (anonymous) says...
To Malachi22x, I will point out that anonymity is not always bad. The authors of The Federalist Papers published them anonymously (actually pseudonymously). Perhaps the authors (Hamilton and Madison) wanted their arguments to be judged on plain merit, and not in light of the author's reputation or position.
April 11, 2007 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mlynarr (anonymous) says...
Just do away with the anonymous posting. People will sing a much different tune when their own name is next to the things they are posting.
April 12, 2007 at 2:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malachi22x (anonymous) says...
If we know the authors’ names (Hamilton and Madison) then they were not anonymous. Chris is receiving some heat for the article he wrote above, which basically is right—these forums may not reflect well on Emporia. If he’s willing to put his name on the line for that, shouldn’t you and I? I'm sure he thinks about repercussions to his family and reputation.
April 12, 2007 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abc123 (anonymous) says...
I think the discussions make this an interesting site, it would be boring if people couldn't express their opinions. My opinion may not necessarily be yours, but sometimes it takes heated discussions to open eyes and get a different perspective. There will always be people in this world who cannot express themselves tactfully but they still have as many rights as the next guy. Most people posting have the ability to tell a serious post from a frivolous one. ALSO I think you will notice that those posting offensive material have been called out and corrected by other people in the discussion and you can always suggest removal!
April 12, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
Sometimes these postings DO bring out some venom.I've really seen it in some national and international forums.A point of view is one thing- singling out and jumping all over a comment poster,or even the author of an article is another.Take it for what it is.A point of view.An opinion gauge of the public that read and responded to the article.I may post a "wrongthinking",or an uninformed comment here,or a cryptic one-liner.Deal with it- it's only meant to convey an opinion.I'm not much interested in dialouge,or how comments "reflect" on Emporia.We will see postings here from a cross section of society-it's the way things are unless your head is in the sand. If you read the area radio blogs,some of us aren't exactly hiding. How do you gauge public opinion without written comments like what's presented here? By editing what doesn't sound nice and kind to all? Yup,real names would change things,too.There are a lot of things happening around here that don't sound "nice and kind to all". I agree threats and swearing should be removed from the postings. I suppose if the comments get out of hand,do away with them altogether.They may upset the advertisers and local government.We can't have that!
April 12, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
I've just posted a more lengthy response titled "Censorship in the Heartland" on my website. For those who care to read it it can be found at:
http://anothermansmeat.blogspot.com/2...
April 12, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gazette_reader (anonymous) says...
Here is an important question: if someone sent a signed letter to the editorial page of the Gazette akin to the kinds of comments attached to the story about the car crashing through the Ayan Cafe, would the Gazette publish it?
Probably not. I think what the Gazette is finding irksome here is that they've given up editorial control by having open forums. Unless the Gazette wants to moderate each discussion, they don't have absolute control over what others see.
Do the comments always positively reflect on our town? No. Do the comments reflect accurately the variety of opinions in our town? For better or for worse, I think they do. I suspect the average external reader will have a much better sense of what goes on in the minds of Emporians reading some of those comments, even the nasty ones, then they will reading the Gazette.
I, too, find some of the posts ignorant and embarrassing (and I'm sure there are others who might say the same about my posts), but I see this as an opportunity for the Gazette. I suggest that the Gazette uses these forums as a way to figure out what the town is thinking, and then do investigative reports to substantiate or dispute the rumors. The Gazette already did this by writing a story on how to get a driver's license. Instead of waiting to hear rumors word-of-mouth, consider that they are being typed up and delivered instantly, and use it as a source of ideas for good reporting. Then go to these threads and insert links into the discussions so that active participants can see accurate information.
If the Gazette hoped to have nothing more than a series of posts that say, "Hey, Gazette, you guys are a bunch of brilliant writers and this was yet another great story," well, then it's time to close the forums, post the pdf to the web and go home for the night.
April 12, 2007 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sciguy (anonymous) says...
"If we know the authors’ names (Hamilton and Madison) then they were not anonymous." -- Malachi22x
Apparently the story was lost on you. They were published anonymously/pseudonymously at the time, and have since been revealed to have been written by Hamilton and Madison.
The true authorship of some of the Federalist papers is still in question, and considerable scholarship has been devoted to studying the writings to answer the question of who wrote them.
April 12, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
Gazette Reader
You're absolutely right. The Gazette should be using these forums as a source to do the things you advocate. If they did that I think it would really serve the public interest.
April 12, 2007 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
There are hundreds of bulletin boards that are moderated out there and maybe the Gazette needs to post a set of rules and make people abide by them.
For example, on one board I frequent, the rules are "no swearing, no threatening, no racial comments, no posting personal information of others, etc." It goes on and on for a while.....and if you violate the rule once, you get a warning through email. Twice, you are gone--or something like that. They will give you a second warning if your first warning was more than X months ago, kwim?
Check out the rules on these sites:
www.babycenter.com
www.proboards.com
Or go to any site you frequent and click on "community" and there are usually rules posted. The Gazette just needs to adopt a similar policy.
Melissa
April 13, 2007 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm more astounded by this article than any I've seen. I'm all for posters adhering to "no swearing, racial comments, threats, etc..." and being removed if they break those laws. But the Gazette wants to censor this? They want to set themselves up as God to be the final arbiter on what is right and wrong? Lets just skip the whole process and institute Sharia law right now.....
One thing I've noticed about the left. They're ALL for the 1st amendment and freedom of speech AS LONG as it is what they agree with. If they disagree, then you need to be silenced. Case in point: Look around at universities across the country when guest speakers address: If they are liberal, no problems - if they are conservative, they either have someone running across the stage trying to slam a cream pie in their face (remember Ann Coulter?) or groups try to chant and disrupt their speech and drown them out. Lots of groups out there seem to believe free speech applies to ME, not to YOU. So I'm sure any opinion that the Gazette staff AGREES with will be printed, and what they DISAGREE with will be buried.
Exactly when did America no longer become a democracy where the PEOPLE had the power? I see where the Kansas legislature voted down a bill that would have imposed stiffer penalties on businesses that hired illegal aliens. How many people here really believe that if the people were allowed to vote on that bill, that it would not have passed? At least we have the power to vote the legislatures that defeated that bill out of office. Too bad we can't vote media people out who want to put forth their own agenda instead of just reporting the news unbiased. Oh, wait, we can - we can just quit buying their paper, and they can either go back to unbiased reporting, or go out of business....
April 13, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phil_Dillon (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes
Like you, I don't like the idea of the Gazette being the sole arbiter of what the public can and cannot see. They already have enough editorial power as it is. Free speech is often messy. There are lots of opinions and not all of them are packaged neatly. Not all of them are polite. I've had lots of people disagree with things I've written on my blog and not all of the response was pleasant, nor was it accurate. But if we give in to the pressure to censor the things we don't like there will eventually come a time when on a few in the elite will be able to express any opinions at all. That's dangerous.
Phil Dillon
http://anothermansmeat.blogspot.com
April 13, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandyestabrook (anonymous) says...
Since I'm one of the few who used their actual name on the "thread" where such negativity occurred I think that real names should be used. I'm all for freedom of speech but with that comes some responsibility. The anonymous issue negates the responsibility. Using your real name makes you stop and think before you write something that you know many others are going to read. Do I really want that out there with my name attached? Snake, I've noticed is using his name sometimes now and that is a great start. You others should follow suite. My point is, if you really believe all you say then why not sign your real name??
April 13, 2007 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Snake, it's apparent to me that the Gazette is probably your first time at internet forums or bb's, kwim? And btw, most have rules. I offered a suggestion for the Gazette to use irl. Do you have one? If so, I missed it. :(
And, there's no need to be hateful or sarcastic. If you think that's the first time someone has been rude, well, btdt. That's what makes it obvious that this is a new experience for you. So, maybe you should cio on someone else.
Does anyone else cwim about the rudeness? Imho, there's no need for that. But, it's almost comical and I want to LMAO at the same time. But rudeness is nmsaa.
Melissa (ROFLMAO because you probably think I have a bunch of typos).
April 13, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Yes, Snake, I am so "empressed".
http://www.m-w.com/
Melissa
April 13, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gazette_reader (anonymous) says...
"Using your real name makes you stop and think before you write something that you know many others are going to read. Do I really want that out there with my name attached?"
The sad thing is that in a town this size, many people will avoid even good and well-thought-out discussion because it will come back to get them if they sign their names to it. For example, someone working at the university might have something important and constructive to say, and even though their rights to free speech are supposedly protected, if it doesn't agree with the party line, that person might really pay for it at work.
April 13, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dr_Mac (anonymous) says...
I seem to recognize discord here. In an attempt to get your mind off personal feelings and unkind remarks between you, I believe we should combine our efforts and ask for guidance from the editor Chris Walker in suggesting to the City Commissioners, in their down time, to file a lawsuit against the city of Omaha, NE / Council Bluffs, IA for plagiarism.
I have been informed by friends in the Omaha area that the combined cities are about to construct a bike/walking bridge over the Missouri river from Omaha to Council Bluffs. I can't help but believe this stupid project must have been conceived by viewing the beautiful and worthy bridge of a similar use across I-35 on the north end of Prairie avenue. This might be worth looking into.
April 14, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I stopped visiting this forum regularly simply because much of the "discussion" was simply angry jeering. Much of it was dominated by a very few people. As one who does write letters to be published in the paper over my signature, the concept of identifying oneself seems logical and responsible. The language one uses is of no importance insofar as I am concerned so long as the writer takes responsibility for it. I would urge the Gazette to inaugurate the rule of ID. Those who register with the domain must say who they are in a way the Gazette may verify. Otherwise, it's just going to be trash talk.
Craig French
April 15, 2007 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Great Idea. That way, anyone on the "inside" who works at Tyson that disagrees with the public line can be singled out and fired from their job (of course, another excuse will be given for their dismissal, but we'll all know the real reason). Yes, lets find a way to squash any opinion that doesn't agree with ours. I really appreciate the way that CBS only stands behind employees that present the absolute truth, such as Dan Rather and his infamous Bush "memo".....
April 16, 2007 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joetho (anonymous) says...
Wow, I would not want to be in a room where people talked to each other like this. I would walk out. No, I would RUN out.
Hmmm, the editor suggests that there might be a problem with personal pettiness (and worse) with this forum, and a few of you knuckleheads prove him right.
Step back and read this thread again, or better yet, have your KIDS read it and give you their opinion.
I like the idea of a few rules- require valid email for anonymous user authentication, and prohibit obscenity, racism, personal attacks, etc.
And by the way, Ann Coulter is hardly in the same league with Dan Rather. Warts and all, Rather practice(d) journalism. Ann Coulter is, well, uh, mmm, have you ever LISTENED to her? Sheeesh!
April 16, 2007 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I never said I agreed with Ann Coulter. Probably could have found a better example as she grates on even MY nerves at times. What I pointed out was that I think she has just as much a right to voice her opinion as the left does, without getting a pie slammed in her face, or any other form of censorship, and that those who demonstrate the loudest for free speech are often the same ones that try to suppress it the most when it doesn't agree with them.
As for Dan Rather, the key here is the little (d) you added after practice....:)
As I stated, I'm all for rules forbidding racist comments, slander, etc., but for verification, is Emporia a "safe haven" city for illegal immigrants? In other words, are we one of these cities that tell their law enforcement not to inquire into a person's immigration status if they break the law? I honestly don't know, just asking the question. If we ARE, then for verification, I can just say I'm an illegal immigrant and you can't force me verify ANYTHING.... harhar....:)
April 17, 2007 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
barbara61 (anonymous) says...
I deeply believe in free speech and there should be no restriants on how people feel. That doesnt mean be racist or threatnening to anyone but to speak your mind freely is what America is all about .
April 27, 2007 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UserName (anonymous) says...
I think the Emporia Gazette forums are an excellent idea. The people of Emporia need an open forum to discuss ideas and the concerns they may have over issues affecting the community.
It will be a balancing act, though. As you've seen and commented on in your post, there are those who will use the "anonymity" of the internet to spew hatred and vulgarity.
There aren't many options for dealing with this. You can moderate the forums and delete posts deemed offensive or you can close the forums.
Some people have suggested requiring people to use their real names, but how can you do that? You can't very well ask them to show a picture ID before registering. I can tell you my name is James Bond and without a picture ID, you really don't have any way to verify it.
Anyway, thanks again for the forum. Why not expand it so that people can start topics of interest to them instead of just commenting on stories?
It would be interesting to see what topics people have concerns about.
May 1, 2007 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )