The Teckki Says

As the author of a blog, I am aware of how quickly comments can turn into commentary that detracts from a post, and begin to focus on negative issues. I routinely ban comments that will detract from my readers enjoyment of the blog, and as the owner, I get to be the sole determinant of what detractions are.

Blogging has become a very important part in online newspapers as it gives readers the opportunity to comment on individual stories. This element is very important, as it takes its place beside Op-Ed and Letters to the Editor sections as an important part of community discussion.

However, in too many instances, blogging has become more than that, and a good deal of it negative. Stories that involve race, crime, poverty, education, immigration and other issues that benefit from a healthy public discourse have been hijacked by those who view these issues in narrow, often divisive positions. In anonymity, these “commentators” feel free to tell the world what they would never tell their friends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, employers, community members and such how they really feel. In many respects, I feel some blogs allow misunderstanding, fear and hate to masquerade as discussion and discourse.

I used to work as a columnist for a community newspaper. There were two issues I concerned myself with as I penned my columns. The first was how it might be edited to say in essence what I said, but not quite what I meant. Editors do "edit" columns as they proof them. A sentence edit could change a whole point of view. With my name on the column, I couldn't say I didn't write it.

The other issue was how it would be perceived by the readers. I was sometimes stopped on the street to discuss a point, or disagreement. Sometimes, my wife and kids could rescue me from a dicey situation, as in, "we need to be going." Other times, I was on my own.

The point is that I understood the impact of what I was saying and who I was saying it to. I also considered that I was going to be interpreted by both an editor and reader base, and that they both knew who I was. Unlike many bloggers today, I wasn't throwing rocks and hiding behind usernames and avatars. I was accountable for what I wrote, and often, held accountable by the readers.

I applaud what the major Chicago newspapers have finally started to do, which is monitor their blogs and crack down on very offensive comments. It has not been easy, but the level of blog commentary is much more readable than in the past. In many cases, the Chicago Tribune doesn't even open commentary to articles they deem will probably result in overly negative commentary, and the SunTimes routinely blocks comments and bans repeat offenders.

Some would call this censorship and stepping on first amendment rights. I call it bringing standards back into mainstream journalism. I've written letters to the editor, and have had them printed. After my letter, I got a phone call from the paper to confirm I wrote it. After it was printed, I'd get calls from friends and relatives saying they saw it. I exercised first amendment rights, and had to deal with first amendment consequences and benefits. "I'm just saying..." needs to have a real name attached to it.

For those who operate blogs, this is where the work comes in. If you have a cause, you can't just let comments flow freely to spice things up. When they get out of hand, you have to shut things down. In some cases, you have to ban users. If you don't, visitors just won’t ignore the comments, they'll ignore the blog entirely.