The Virginian-Pilot
©
More than a year after we began asking folks to confirm their identity in order to comment at the Opinion channel at PilotOnline.com, we have some results:
- More than 900 people are now verified commenters.
- Nearly 100 people have signed up in the past 45 days.
- In 14 months, verified users have posted more than 16,600 comments.
I'm not sure precisely what we thought success would look like when we began, but I'm pretty sure this is a good start.
Just as important as the numbers, however, is what has happened to the conversation at the Opinion channel at PilotOnline.com. And what hasn't happened.
As you can see both online and on the editorial page, something has changed in the tone in our online community. Comments have become more thoughtful. More focused. They have become every bit as constructive as letters to the editor, about the highest praise I know.
Most of the best conversations, in fact, have been initiated by letters to the editor. One discussion about a letter drew more than 200 comments.
The asymmetry between letter-writers (who have their name below their letters) and commenters (who now have their name above their comments) is gone.
No longer can some coward snipe from the cover of anonymity at someone who has the courage to say what's in his heart or on his mind.
The fact that everyone knows who's writing what means that we can also reprint the best comments on the editorial page. Before we began requiring verified identities, we couldn't do that.
The foundation is a principle that has placed editorial pages in good stead for a century: If you want to be part of the conversation, you will take ownership of your words. It doesn't matter whether that's online or in print.
I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't worried about the consequences of a move as radical and untested as the one we made in 2010.
Some argued that people wouldn't be willing to sign up, to use a credit card transaction - through PayPal - to confirm their identity. More than 900 people have been. The process is free, painless and secure, and it needs to be done only once.
Some carped that it would shut down debate, but it hasn't. They claimed the Opinion channel would become a chorus of people agreeing with us.
If anything, I think even more people disagree with our opinions - and with columns and letters - than ever before. But they do it civilly and (mostly) with respect.
Gone is the Wild West anarchy that rules many online forums. Gone, too, is the work required to keep people within the bounds of good taste, the kind of thing that too many newspapers spend too much time doing.
The conversation at the Opinion channel has become remarkably self-regulating and self-controlled. We've had to chide a few people for personal attacks, or other things outside the bounds of PilotOnline, but I can't remember the last time it happened.
Despite all the naysayers, the PilotOnline Opinion world didn't come to an end when we asked people to provide their names. It has gotten better. It continues to grow. It has become the online town square we'd always hoped. Thanks to you.
Donald Luzzatto is The Pilot's editorial page editor. Email: donald.luzzatto@pilotonline.com.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Thanks for banishing anonymity
Thanks for banishing anonymity. I've cited your pathbreaking example to people at other news outlets. I do suppose it's a shame that, for example, a police officer might feel in danger of firing for commenting on police-related stuff. But it's also true that for many decades when letters to the editor were the only available means for public commenting, such an officer endured the same constraint. In any case, democracy and freedom require individual responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to stand up forthrightly beside your actual name and identity when contributing to civic discussion. I'm glad that the Pilot has taken the lead in the online world in restoring that basic, obvious, time-tested principle. And I suspect that the individual leader was Mr. Luzzatto himself. Good for him for living up to the Pilot's longtime standards. Newspapers matter, and so does the American tradition of individual responsibility in the exercise of freedom.
I have always used my own name, even in the daze of TalkNet
People should not have to fear sharing their opinions in public.
Are there some people who will try to get others they disagree with - fired?
Yes. I know this to be true. First hand. It is a shameful way to stifle opinions that differ from our own.
Does requiring one's real name result in preventing some people from freely expressing their views? yes, it does. Especially from employers.
I am grateful the Pilot makes so much "space" available online. For a long, long time the Pilot has picked up the expense of offering online discussion forums. TalkNet was amazing - and a real jewel for Tidewater. Sad to see it go.
The fun on TalkNet (for those who do not know it was the Pilot's first online "blog" before the term "blog" (web log) was used) was tho we fought like cats & dogs with each other, we would, from time to time, meet in a bar and debate issues over beer and finger food. Dave Addis and Kerry Dougherty hosted our first face-to-face gathering.
What I discovered was that the folks that "blog" CARE, and the care passionately - about trying their best to share with others what they believe will make of community, city, region, state, country, or planet - better.
We simply disagree on how to do that - and often as not, WHO should pay for it.
Discussion helpful. Given enough discussion and time, something wonderful appears - the truth, the truth - often manages to finally see the light of day!
Oh, and I forgot............
"Mob of posters."
Yes, in the case of a large
Yes, in the case of a large unruly group. I would add ill informed as well. Their opinions were set the moment they read Kerry's column which was simply irresponsible journalism, inaccurate, and inflammatory. Now, if any had actually considered the factual analysis provided at a later date, they could have redeemeed themselves, but frankly, I can't recall on of those anonymous posters who reconsidered their opinion once the facts came out, proving once again that reasoned analysis simply does not count with a large unruly mob.
So frankly, this case proves my point. If it were required that posters sign their posts, there would still be debate and argument, but just like comments on the editorial page, they would benefit from the urge to be civil when you have to sign your name.
Would the posts be dull? Certainly not, but there is great advantage in expressing ones point of view and others know you had enough courage to stand behind it, as you do as well.
There You Go Again...............
"No reasoned analylsis, drivel, lack of quality, ad nauseaum."
I rest my case.
Mr. Barrett, no disrespect, but......
You crack me up. I just took the time to reread some of your recent posts. Perhaps your definition of "civility" is different than the one in Websters. Either that or you subscribe to the "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy.
Yes, and I guess your
Yes, and I guess your definition of civility includes the requirement that the poster agree with you. Regretfully, on the last issue, that is, the convention hotel, there were only a few posters of reasoned analysis, and a mob of posters who simply repeated ad nauseam what Kerry had posted before anyone really understood the proposed PPV.
Those voices of reason were attacked unmercifully for a variety of reasons, none having to do with the deal itself. Yes, it was tough, and I played my part as well, but 99% of those who posted such drivel posted anonymously.
Frankly, they needed to be responded to, and I and a few others did. I make no aplogies given the quantity and lack of quality of those who hid behind anonymity.
I, like Margaret, am
I, like Margaret, am constantly amazed at the base emotion and fear exhibited by many posters about articles in the Pilot. I think those who comment on letters to the Editor exhibit some of the same, but agree the tone is more civil.
I am pleased that the Pilot instituted this requirement, and while it may have cut down a bit on the number of posters, it has benefitted the civility of the page.
My preference would be to institute the same rule for commenting on news stories, as my hope would be that would stimulate a more civil tone. The down side is it will cut participation, but generally that participation does not inform, it inflames. Frankly, the wild nature of commentary on new stories has become a factor in political decision making, and if democracy really is all sail and no anchor, this trend is discouraging to say the least.
I hope the Pilot weighs in on the side of reason and civility.
Ms Wasson, I am a political Moderate....
I do indeed remember "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy and the national disgrace known as "McCarthyism". It was perpetrated by the far Right Extremests. I am also aware of the present national disgrace known as "Political Correctness" which is perpetrated by the far Left Extremists. They were, and are, equally damaging to this country and the hope for rational discourse.
Me a "moderate" too ...
just a little younger, I think. As you refer to "tailgunner joe mccarthy" as a national disgrace known as "McCarthyism" perpetrated by what you call the Far Right "extremests," I am curious if you would be kind enough to give examples of what you mean by the "national disgrace of political correctness perpetrated by the Far Left"? What kind of damage have both kinds of "extremests" been perpetuating? What is going on... I really want to know...