The Value of Anonymous Commenters
Weblogs everywhere seem to be experiencing the same growing pains. Yesterday I brought up the subject of bloggers deleting comments and on the very same day the New York Times ran an article about that and other problems bloggers now face. In particular many bloggers seem to be fed up with anonymous posters. I agree that there is a downside, but I think the advantages of anonymity outweigh the disadvantages by a wide margin.
And boy have I experienced the downside! If anyone remembers, during the Ray Buckley fiasco my column got hit by what I’ll bet is the record here at NH INSIDER. It was unbelievable—just wall to wall posts of partisan spam. Almost all were posted by anonymous folks. Some probably wrote five a day under different names for all I know. I wondered how long it might drag on. I wondered too what I could do if it continued.
Fortunately it died down. It could happen again of course, and probably will, but if I had begun deleting anonymous posters I would also have killed off the lifeblood of this column.
The fact is that very often the best comments I read are from anonymous sources. That’s how the press gets the best information. Investigative journalists would be weaponless without the source that talks on “the condition of anonymity.” That’s what brought down Richard Nixon—deep throat remained anonymous for thirty years, but he changed history.
There are many legitimate reasons why people post anonymously and I don’t buy into the cowardice angle. Yeah there are some cowards that drink a six pack then wail on us with a clever name. But there are many people in public life who want to get the facts out without getting embroiled in a blogging flare up or an argument with their colleagues. They don’t want to be walking through the state house and hear about what they wrote the night before on my blog either. They have better things to do.
They are also smart enough to let us bloggers bang our heads together so they don’t have to!
So please, anonymous sources keep banging in here.
Chaz Proulx
13 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (13)
While I do think that there are a lot of good comments by anonymous posters, many are nothing more than partisan reactionaries that just like to name call and spew half truths under the safety of a nom de plume. That is sad and I do not respect that. I'm sure there are many reasons for not wanting to post your real name, such as google showing that you are blogging during work, but the fact is that at least in my mind Naile and Sylvia get more repect than MAX and Mike , not because I agree with them more but because they aren't scared to go on the record with their opinions. As an aside I agree with MAX a lot and Mike almost never.
I have noted on a least one occasion that though you and I seldom agree, I applaud the fact that you use your own name here.
But I stick by the news analogy and disagree that we only see opinion here. Mike M and Mad Max both pump facts into our discussions.
I learn a lot from them. I also know that quite a few people in government read this column. I want to encourage them to participate. I don't care if they use their names or not.
My worst fear though, is that deleting will lead to abuse. Bloggers will delete people they disagree with or posts that blow huge holes in their arguments.
For now I won't do that in my column.
I greatly appreciate the fact that my anonymous comments are valued. We all want to be respected for our contributions to the debate, and if anybody ever deleted one of my posts I would probably ask others to boycott that particular blogger.
MAD MAX
Respectfully, the most important part of this site is not the comments but the original posts. This might be something anonymous writers might not realized but to write strong pieces about some of the most controversial issues of the day is not easy, especially when you ar doing it every week.
We are not paid, and when we write well most of the comments are in extreme disagreement with our points.
Being an unpaid author of meaningful political dialogue means being open to criticism from everyone including partisan hacks, and it definitely means making yourself vulnerable to personal attacks. If people are going to continue to write quality pieces we are going to have to mitigate some of the more insulting or partisan attacks and it just so happens that the worst attacks and the most partisan happen to be anonymous.
I think when people are forced to put their name on posts they will instantly become more thoughtful, less willing to make personal attacks (as they will be vulnerable as well) and the ideas exchanged will be much more fruitfull.
Even the fights will be more productive.
On one side you have people hiding because of a bias or trying to talk trash without having to get any of the backlash. You could have people from Person A's political camp trashing Person B without it coming out they are working for Person A. Because of things like that I usually assume the worst case when reading from anon posters.
On the other side though, someone could have a valid point but for some reason don't want to be the one coming out with it. Not to mention those who do openly speak out on issues often face backlash. I've had people contact my employer in efforts to get me fired from my job, I've had people write anon letters to my home threatening me and my family, and as a local politician I know any time I express state or national views I put myself at risk of having people vote against me locally because of how I feel on such issues.
I don't believe I've ever thrown mud at any of the knuckle dragging, neanderthals I disagree with (just keeding.. I joke because I love..)
However, I do try to call people on their s#*& and point out the speciousness of some of their arguments. Hopefully it's said in the same respectful way it would be if my real name were on the line. If not, feel free to call me on MY s#*&!
Heck, I really can't misbehave here.. Andy knows my true identity... he could "out" me!
My personal attitude is that everyone should have a consistent handle, but that it doesn't matter too much whether it is your real name or just a handle, since in most cases, we're not important enough for anyone to care what we're saying.
Thanks DT, I'm glad to see that you are reading this. I've had you in mind.
Dave,
It took me a while to figure out why blogging is so different than writing op-eds ( something I used to do often) or writing for our Newsletter at DFNH.
The interactive nature of this medium is a different thing entirely.
At one time I seldom answered anyone--I thought it best to stay "above the frey" so to speak.
But since the elections I've gotten more involved with readers and find it rewarding.
I think we are all in uncharted territory and I want to see where it leads with as few restrictions as possible.
Exactly my point. I've been dropped from several email groups because people see me as a threat because I'll speak my mind openly. I could easily hide who I am so they will continue spilling their guts thinking I'm someone I'm not but that's not me. I'd rather get dropped from the groups because they know who I am and choose to push me away but I do understand those who don't feel that way.
And DT, just because they don't include you in the groups doesn't mean what they say in those groups wont get back to you. I hear EVERYTHING sooner or later. In small towns you would too.
I hold confidentiality above all with trustworthy people, and you're definately that, at least so far. :-)
I disagree. I usually use anons as "useful idiots" to attack broader principles and perspectives due the the cowardice of anon-ing.
It's their right to anon here, but as it was said above, it's a double edged sword.