Real Name: Chris Cobler Address: 311 E. Constitution St. Victoria, TX 77901 Gender: male Member Since: September 16, 2007 Last Signed In: September 04, 2008 Profile Views: 2078 Blog Views: 12300 Your guide to Gustav and football debuts today How do you know when to say goodbye? What are you doing at 10 a.m.? We've reserved a seat for you at our morning planning meetings What headline would you put on the Ratcliff story? Will newspapers be the last mass medium? Ethics board discusses how we handle tough photographs, stories Are you wild about the Texas Zoo? I'd say the future is in good hands What comments do you have for next ethics board meeting? September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
What is a personal attack?
It sounds like a simple question. But moderating an online forum is anything but simple. During a heated local election, the challenge is even more difficult.
If an anonymous poster debates the point made by a previous anonymous poster and then adds an insult at the end of the remark, is that a personal attack? And how slighted should an anonymous poster feel about being insulted? What if an anonymous poster contends the personal attack he or she is posting is true? Generally, we're able to sort through these questions when moderating our online forums. In a previous post, I outlined our ethics board's philosophy of encouraging the online community to police itself. In the digital age, a newspaper editor is no longer the gatekeeper of information. Even still, we think we have a role in promoting a responsible conversation. Each time people post, they are reminded of the basic rules of the road, which include no personal attacks. By requiring registration, we weed out most of the bad actors and generally see a constructive community conversation occur on our Web site. Regularly, we get involved by posting our own comments or occasionally warning a repeat offender. We have even banned at least one chronic violator of our policies. The violations increased significantly during the school board race between incumbent Tami Keeling and Dr. Charlie Jaynes. That's a pity because they both are fine people running to volunteer their service for the community. I'll never understand how ugly such local races can become. Only a few so-called supporters of both candidates have been guilty of the attacks. Generally speaking, people running for public office should be fair game for legitimate criticism. Unfortunately, some have gone well beyond what reasonable people would consider legitimate. A couple of reasonable readers asked our ethics board to reconsider our policy of allowing comments to be posted live to our site. During our monthly meeting this week, ethics board members discussed the proposal, but couldn't see any way pre-publication moderation would work. Posts might not appear for hours if they had to be approved by someone screening them first. We'll keep evaluating how best to moderate our site -- actually, I like to think of it as your site -- and encourage your participation. Perhaps we'll be able to develop other safeguards. Many sites continue to wrestle with these questions, as you can see from this Online Journalism Review post. I see journalists as the right people to engage the audience in a positive way, as this Online Journalism article outlines. What are your suggestions for preventing personal attacks on candidates, their families or others? Rumors, innuendo and hateful gossip existed long before the Internet, of course. Are we fighting a losing battle to keep it off our site? I hope not. The community conversation is too valuable. 13 comments from 8 users
1
posted by
Ladyinpink
on Jun 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Mr. Cobler, did your readership increase during the controvresal Jaynes/keeling race? I bet it did and all of these people saw all of your advertisers. And if I am not mislead, the bulk of your income comes from advertisers, Not subscriptions. Am I correct? I stayed the heck off here for that one, even though several names, accused me of being somoene I am not. Have a great evening posted by
smidgeon08
on Jun 17, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Cobler, I think you will have one hellacious story about the drillteam by end of summer, thst is unless the advocate chooses to turn the usual blind eye and not cover it. Thanks
posted by
ragman
on Jun 15, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Sugar wrote: But a blogger shouldn't have to put up with threats, disrespect, profane or otherwise inappropriate posts to their blogs.
Of course not. That certainly is not the same as commenting on a blog. Why can't a bloggers views be challenged if they are putting it out for all to read? What purpose does it serve? None, if it can't be challenged. Then only the post the blogger agrees with will be left. Again, very boring. We are back to--the mutual admiration society. And re: the prior post, you only agreed with some folks. I wasn't really writing about you. When someone blogs that Barack Obama is a Muslim, shouldn't people be able to point out that is a lie? (It has been done.) Should the blogger delete the post because they would like others to believe that he is, because it is a negative? OR, should someone be able to blog that John McCain was a failure as a Naval Officer because he was shot down. (I have heard that too). Shouldn't someone be able to say that's a lot of hog wash? I was just wondering. See the Blog--- Fight the Smears!posted by
SugarMagnolia
on Jun 15, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Ragman - you misunderstand my (I cannot speak for any other bloggers, though) motivation here. I simply believe that a blogger should be able to control the content of THEIR blog. I have personally NEVER wanted (nor have I done so) to delete a response on my blog, nor block anyone from posting to my blog. I believe that most bloggers keep things civil, as do most posters to blogs. But a blogger shouldn't have to put up with threats, disrespect, profane or otherwise inappropriate posts to their blogs. Same principle as the "spam" or "bulk" category in a person's email account. I simply believe that a blogger should be given that ability to control THEIR blog via the VicAd.posted by
ragman
on Jun 15, 2008 at 04:23 PM
Sounds like many people only want people to comment---if they agree. Sounds awfully boring. "You are great!!" "Your right, no your right, no!!,I said your are right." "Are you sure you aren't left?" "Did I tell you how great you are?" Are blogs for only one point of view? Even when the blogger makes false statements? Just wondering? If a political statement is being made, should it be countered? If someone is announcing a pot luck dinner at The Church of the Four Headed Goat; then there is really no need to comment. (I think that is where satan attends) BUT..... if there is a meeting of the Torries this weekend, and the blog also states--you know only Torries believe in character, because they are conservative and are ordained with family values. I am gonna have to post a comment on that. Even if some folks don't like it. Because we all know that the Torries @#$%. Can you say that? Go ahead, block my say. posted by
SugarMagnolia
on Jun 15, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Ditto, MMKO and Toni Anne concerning the ability to block certain posters from your personal blog. Hope this can be done, Chris! posted by
ToniAnne
on Jun 15, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Here I go... It is a free country - but the Victoria Advocate online has the authority to monitor the forums/blogs however they want. Freedom of speech comes into play when you leave and go find somewhere else to blog. If you don't like the moderation at the forums/blogs - deal with it - or go somewhere else. Also - I second MMKO. I would LOVE a feature that enables me to moderate my own blog as I wish, without having to watch it like a hawk every second of the day. My blog is my personal area to moderate as I choose (within reason and keeping with the basic VicAd policies and guidelines of blogs and comments). I think the feature that I would most use is a "block user" feature. I think that ALL of us would like that... posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 15, 2008 at 09:12 AM
MMKO,I understand and sympathize with your point of view. I also would like to develop a system that gives even more control to users about what they see and don't see on the site and who they do and don't interact with here. We'll keep working on that. Chris posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 15, 2008 at 07:36 AM
Satan,Thanks for the feedback. Pilot and many others will appreciate the point you're making. Others, particularly those with special-needs children, might wince at the way you said it and report it as a violation. Your comment is a good example of the fuzziness that enters the equation when you moderate comments online. Chris posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 15, 2008 at 07:33 AM
Smidgeon,I've lost track of every specific post that was a problem, but we deleted the violations regardless of which candidate the person favored. Actually, I think it's being generous to say these people supported a particular candidate because I don't think they did the people campaigning any favors with their comments. So-called "dirty little secrets" about a candidate's family members, for example, don't strike us as relevant to the campaign. If you want to vote based on what you think you know about someone's family, that's up to you. But we don't see it as worth our time or in our reader's best interests to report the behavior of a candidate's relatives. We would need compelling evidence that information would directly affect the candidate's ability to serve as an elected official. We never saw that here in any way. One fact that was reported during the campaign is that Dr. Jaynes' wife and son-in-law work for the district. We examined how that would affect his ability to vote on the school budget. That was a reasonable question. What was unreasonable was all of the sniping about D.J. Jaynes' work on the drill team. Perhaps there's a story to be done about the drill team, but many comments were over the top as it related to this campaign. Chris posted by
smidgeon08
on Jun 15, 2008 at 01:16 AM
I think that before you remove information that someone has posted, you might be bothering to at least try to verify if the information is true and has validity. It must be a valid point with the poster or they wouldnt post. During this campaign, you allowed Vdore, Jesse Alvarez, BellyBoop and several others to make remarks aimed at certain ones who they suspected to support the other candidate. A couple of these people couldnt even vote nor did they have children in VISD. Yes when they tried to tell the truth, you cut it, but didnt cut what was said by the people defending the Jaynes group. If your coverage of anything is to be fair, then all the facts, including dirty little secrets need to be addressed. Your paper addressed the ones that the Jaynes supporters wanted and if there was anything opposing that, it wasnt even thought about. REpublicans and Democrats who are in the public eye are subjected to this all the time, so why arent local candidates. What makes them so special. Anyhow, it is over and done for a while at least.. I really think that God showed favor on those who had honorable intentions, not personal inteerst at heart. From what I saw and heard of the Doctor, he didnt fight too hard to be elected, I personally think he could care less. I think he was pushed to run and he gave it his best shot. The bottom line about your postiong issues is to hear both sides, not cutting out what one side has to say and letting the other side say what they want. And one more time, See YOU at IHOP! posted by
pilot
on Jun 14, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Satan's little buddy...........so many times since I first heard that comparison, I have tried to find a spot to slip it in and have it be meaningful and deal with the flak afterward. Touche'! Quite appropriate analogy.........
posted by
SatansLittleBuddy
on Jun 14, 2008 at 08:26 PM
Speaking as someone who has entered into his own fair share of inane internet arguments, I refer to this quote:"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still retarded."
1
|