Starting October 3, 2011, the Chestertown Spy will not accept anonymous comments or aliases in our comments section.
As many regular readers know, I have struggled with our comments section since almost the very first day of publication. While it is an impressive metric that the Spy has generated over 7,000 comments to date (most of them thoughtful and helpful), I have come to believe that our policy of allowing anonymous messages has contributed to a growing movement towards incivility in our society.
I was reminded of that when I heard a lecture by the British social critic Os Guinness over in Royal Oak a few weeks ago. The great grandson of the noted Irish brewer, Guinness addressed the issue of civility as a significant crisis in our culture. His central point was that our civil public square, once the pride of the American experience, has been reduced to a certain barbarism as the rights, responsibilities and respect of citizens have become increasingly marginalized through such things as anonymous postings on websites like the Spy. I sadly must agree with him.
In the end, civility, Guinness notes, is not an issue of good manners, but rather a way for us to co-exist with deep and profound differences of opinion and in ideology. As we’ve moved from the physical (the New England town meeting) to the metaphysical (representative government) to the virtual (the internet), our respect for these differences has been severely compromised.
This depressing condition however can be corrected, but it must start at the local level. Our differences can not be so great here in Chestertown that we must use false names to offer opinion. While the case of freedom of speech is profound, and should be upheld at all costs, in the life of a small community, and a small town e-newspaper, incivility should have no home.
For those who feel they are not able to voice opinions publicly without retribution or other consequences, the Spy will find a safe way to ensure those points of view are expressed.
And a special thanks to most, if not all, of Chestertown Spy’s previous anonymous commentators. Over the years, Stellal, Born and Raised Here, Len H, observer, MD Eastern Shore, middle-class, Catty One, and countless others have been extremely helpful to local debates with their contributions. I hope you all will continue to share with the community your insights using your real names in the future.
#
On another note, Nancy Taylor Robson, after almost three years with the Spy has decided to move on. An accomplished food and garden writer with years at the Baltimore Sun before helping the Spy, Nancy has provided an extraordinary service to the local food and garden community with her weekly columns and recipes. She also provided a fledgling e-newspaper with consistency and quality, which is one of the reasons the Spy has thrived. She will be sorely missed.
Heidi Usilton Anthony says
Dave,
I too, sadly, agree with your decision. I know I have the option to not scroll down and read the comments on articles, but I often found myself doing it out of curiosity. So many of them have come to be offensive and poisonous to the good-nature of our community. I stopped reading the Spy because of it! It was defeating and infecting the very purpose of the wonderful service the Spy provides. The dialogue is important, but the venue is not fitting. Thank you.
Carla Massoni says
Thank you Nancy for your contributions to the Spy! Let us know where to find you in the future. You have always been one of my favorite writer/reporters. Dave, thank you for this decision – it takes courage to stand by our convictions. I, too, hope contributors listed above will continue the dialogue.
Kevin Shertz says
Thank you, Dave, for taking this step.
And, thank you, Nancy, for your numerous contributions to The Spy over the past three years.
Marty Stetson says
I applaud you for taking this step in doing so I believe you will achive a much more true picture of what people really stand for or against. If you have an opinion and it is truely felt then you should be willing to put your name on it. I spoke about this some time ago in one of my comments and was taken to task for suggesting such a thing should take place. I think your paper will be better because of the change.
Gren Whitman says
Dave: A very welcome decision, indeed! Second-rate journalism otherwise.
daniel menefee says
Fabulous decision, Dave!
No one using their real name has suffered harm of any kind since the Spy launched–either to person or career. This will no doubt inspire creative ways to communicate less vicserally and more thoughtfully.
Hats off to Nancy!
Dan
Connie Godwin says
Farewell, Nancy. We’ll miss you . Thanks for many hours of good, readable, helpful copy. Good luck in your next adventure. Tell us where we can find you when you decide what your next endeavor will be.
And thanks Dave for ALL that you do to make sure we have the best in good newspapering when we click on the Spy.
Chestertownie says
Dave,
I understand your position, but I’ll be signing off from posting future comments on the Spy. I fear that commenting with attribution could have negative consequences on my professional position.
Chestertownie
Ford schumann says
Thank you Dave and Nancy for adding so positively to our community
mary ellen valliant says
My recently deceased father would always remind all 8 children that you must always own your own words or keep quiet.
Stu Cawley says
Dave: I think your decision is the correct one, as anonymity seems to encourage commenters to toss off deliberately inflammatory & personally insulting attacks that they’d never dream of unleashing in person. I’ve often been astounded & appalled by the level of vitriol attaching itself to entirely innocuous Spy stories. You & your staff have always tried to initiate dialogue on topics of local interest w/o shying away from the difficult ones, & I believe that insisting that voices from all sides be respectful of each other is the foundation for any mutual understanding & positive resolution. Just because posturing & name-calling has hamstrung our nat’l gov’t doesn’t mean we can’t opt for a more civil approach locally.
Nancy: We’ll miss your ebullient presence here & all the joie de vivre you bring to your gardening & cooking columns. Best of luck w/ all your future endeavors.
Jim Landskroener says
Dave, like Marty Stetson, I also felt compelled earlier this year to voice the same objection to the choice by some of your readers to comment without putting their real names to their words. Speaking one’s mind in a public forum may be a right, but it is also a privilege. Too often, comments in this space which have a demeaning or insulting tone are written by those without the intellectual courage to do so openly. I applaud your decision.
Susan Newton-Rhodes says
Dave-
I, too, am a consistent reader of the Spy and have watched many of the questions raised by this local on-line journalistic resource explode into non-sensical and negative debates through the annonymous postings. The civility question that is raised here is of critical importance and i wish, could be raised by other internet journalists, so thank you for taking this step.
We are party to the insane and the inane with some of these discussions, but then the majority of us are adults, albeit some hiding behind the alias and choose to take participate. As a parent of teens who frequent the internet, i am struck by the callous, hurtful and aggressive comments which are shared by the younger generation, many times on the internet, many times in alias, but almost always hurtful and insensitive. we are breeding a generation of young people who think nothing of verbal character assassinations. If we are the “adults” in this community, let us provide that example; “walk the walk” as I often hear.
What I love about Chestertown is the fact that we are responsible to eachother in this small community. I have learned as an “outsider” here just how important it is to temper my thoughts and comments, not knowing who is related to who and in what respect. Coming from a large metropolitan area, where there is often a level of anonymity at the grocery, on the road or on the street; where it may be acceptable to take my bad day or bad behavior out on my neighbors. I have found a different level of responsibility living in this small community knowing that i am directly responsible for my behavior and actions and that there is very little anonymity here, at many levels. To respect each of the people that i encounter has been a part of my education in living in a small town. That does not mean that i can not share a different opinion, but that I can not hide behind the anonymity of a larger community; not on the street, not in the grocery and not on the internet.
i wholly support this position. My hope is that others, where ever they may be, at whatever age, can also adopt this “civility” for our fellow man. Thank you!
Mary Wood says
Congratulations to Dave and the Spy for your decision . Putting your name to your opinion makes you more aware of the weight, or the absurdity of your words.
And goodbye and thanks to Nancy.
Catty One says
Like Chestertownie, it’s bye-bye from me. There are far too many crackpots out there in society for me (some of whom DON’T use screen names)
Small pond, too easy to find addresses. I don’t want my tires flattened, mailbox smashed, or open my door to find some wacko wanting to debate.
“The cat in gloves catches no mice”
Benjamin Franklin
Mailman Jack says
I wholeheartedly agree with your decision; if you are unable to stand behind your words, without a mask, then your words lose their meaning to a degree. I have already gotten some inquisitive looks and comments, as my alias is pretty thin. Perhaps using my name will afford me more anonymity.
Ted & Patsy Hornaday says
Applause for not accepting anymore “anonymous” letters. Years ago before retiring to Chestertown, I worked as Assistant to Dean Harriet Davis, Hartford College for Women in Connecticut. Her wise advice I follow was: “Anyone who does not have the character or courage of their own convictions by sending poison pen or “anonymous” criticism shoud not expect to have any audience but a wastebasket.” My motto: Don’t fret or be upset…..just improve your aim at the wastebasket. Can’t imagine what a mouse would taste like for dinner. – Patsy Hornaday – Chestertown
Janet Brandon says
Congratulations on an upfront decision!! A rose, by any other name would smell as sweet….Without the Spy where would we be ..only less informed and less prompted to spread the word. So, inspyte of everything, continue to inspyre us. And sorry to learn that Nancy is moving on…Onward and forward to everyone.
Billie says
I can understand why some wouldn’t want to use there full name, usually they have the best and truest comments. You can remove me from The Spy !!!!
Lynn Peters says
Oh, how I will miss Nancy’s great gardening and food articles. Best of luck in whatever is next to come, Nancy. Hope the dog doesn’t eat the gourmet cheeses this Christmas!
Lynn Peters
Keith Thompson says
If “Catty One” or any other anonymous poster fears having tires flattened, mailboxes smashed or being accosted by wackos due to comments made on a message board, then perhaps there’s a problem with what they’re posting. Although I don’t have a problem with anonymous posters and I have always thought that many of them do a wonderful job of contributing to the dialogue, I’ve always chosen to use my real name simply because it serves as a check on whether or not I should hit the “send” button (and I have chosen to not hit the ‘send” button on numerous occasions). I understand the reason why the Spy wants to end the practice of anonymous posters and I do applaud the civility of those who do identify themselves (and most of those who don’t). I know that I post things here or say things on the air at WCTR that certain people vehemently disagree with, but I also feel good in knowing that I have the ability to have a friendly dialogue with these same people on the air or to have friendly conversations with them in casual settings around town. One shouldn’t have to fear expressing their opinion in public.
Also, good luck Nancy!
LJ Burgess says
Without anonymity and subterfuge our founding fathers would have been hung from a yardarm and we’d still be paying that faux tea tax to the crown and Wikileaks would never have existed… nor would the original Chestertown Spy.
By abandoning the shield that has protected revolutionaries since “civilization” became “organized”, we throw the baby out with the bath water in the name of “civility”.
Civility is an outdated and overrated concept as it is.
Jane E. Hukill says
I agree with so many of the comments that have been made. I deeply appreciate the Spy and its reporting of the many things that are seriously under-reported in our county. Please keep up the good work and do be proud of your decision. Too many anonymous comments often are repeated as if they were well documented and researched! Not good. And Nancy you know I will miss your writing – but then I already told you that in person. We so badly need the return of civil discourse rather than having continued sound bites hurled at people. Thanks again to all of you at The Spy.
Jack Offett says
Hat’s off to the Spy’s “no nonsense zone.” So much positive, productive and probing developments come from civil discourse. Our community is at a cross-roads. Let’s have the discussion in the open without the fear of anonymous threats, innuendo, and boycotts.
Alex Smolens says
I’ve been awaiting this decision for quite a while. I’ve always wondered if the Chestertown Spy would go the way of print news (real names) or a blog (handle//alias). While using real names may seem to encourage constructive conversations, lack of privacy may leave out some of the more interesting ones
Ken Noble says
Goodbye Chestertownie. Sorry to see you go. What a loss.
The Spy is now main stream for sure….
I defer to the late great Gil Scot Heron:
“The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.”
It’s all good. The revolution will not be brought to us by the Town Council, Washington College OR the Chestertown Spy, because……
“THE REVOLUTION IS NOW BROTHER!” (ford…bring on that bass line now…..)
What are hog maws and why would they have been confiscated? Can we bring back Nancy to do an article on hog maw preparation? ..an article justifying hog maw confiscation. (this is humor….HUMOR!!…..not unCIVILITY….)
Hugh Silcox says
I have posted comments only occasionally, as “BankStreet.” I didn’t fear retribution as much as dismissal as someone who had left his native Chestertown for the Big City (yeah … that one … thirty miles to your west). I will continue to post comments (occasionally), but now without the comfort afforded by anonymity. All in all, much healthier for all.
Carla Massoni says
You can leave Chestertown – but Chestertown never leaves you. Looking forward to your comments from out yonder!
Rob Etgen says
Nancy – your words will be missed. Hope to see your smiling face in person – soon! Rob
Linda Kuiper says
Nancy, So sorry you’re leaving The Spy. As I’ve enjoyed your column it has always brought back memories of entertaining your #1 son on Friday evenings with the Canadian pennies I collected during the week. I wish you well.
Linda
Jon Sallet says
You’re engaged in an important experiment, requiring disclosure while working to find a “safe” means of expressing anonymous views. Thar’s important because anonymity and foul play are far from synonymous. The writers of the Federalist Papers did not use their own names. Constitutional litigation during the civil-rights movement recognized the importance of protecting the identity of those expressing unpopular views (that could lead to retaliation). The balance here between civility and respect, on the one hand, and the full flowering of the open market for ideas, on the other, is a hard one. It will be interesting for you to tell us, in three or six months, how your new approach is working.
Stephan Sonn says
Congrats Dave.
This is the way it ought to be.
Most of these commenting names
I have never seen before.
There was a real danger
that this place would be riddled
with nameless instigators.
Stephan Sonn says
What John Sallet is important
to another time and generation.
These are not just uncivil times
Abusive might best describe these days.
There are two types of instigator who
posted here until Dave stepped
with a required rule of sanity.
Garden variety who are best at
communicating with Mars
while hugging telephone poles
for earthquake protection.
And political snipers needing cover.
The present sniping is riddled
with calls of false patriotism,
in case anyone has noticed
S Pennington says
It would appear that the downside of constrained speech has already arrived, as comments here and elsewhere on the website have transformed from actual discussion to choruses of agreement. It’s up to the website owner to decide if that’s either profitable or rewarding. The readers will decide whether it’s interesting.
Private Citizen says
There must be some way to keep our anonimity (sp?) and still be civilized to each other. Maybe that’ll be the next killer ap (or insanly great invention) to revolutionize cyber space (do they still call it cyber space?). After all, the secret ballot is the cornerstone of free speech, and democracy, is it not ?
I have liked the ability to use an ocasional alias (Private Citizen) at times and my real name most of the time.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
@ Private Citizen : I have liked the ability to use an ocasional alias (Private Citizen) at times and my real name most of the time.
When you posted anon… did you ever tell your friends that you had posted something on the Spy as Private Citizen? Also, did you ever respond to an anon posting by Private Citizen using your real name. The dynamics of anon v anti-anon intrigue me… especially in such a closed society like we have in CofK.
Joe Diamond says
Is there not some way to examine ideas without attribution?
I think of many local conversations where one party fell into the oldest pot hole in the road: being a minor participant somehow makes that person not only and expert on the topic but also sole editor of who can add observations.
“Since you were not born here and have no ancestors in the local grave yards you have no right to comment on anything.”
“Since you were never in Viet Nam you have to right to an opinion or even repeat the scholarship of others on the subject.”
“Since you are not a woman how could you know?”
” You have way too much education to understand this.”
Great minds examine ideas. Lesser thoughts surround stuff. The same persons who would make a pun would discuss personalities…………..like some of the red neck idiots in the town of . . .
Anyhow, should the source of an idea be significant?
Joe
Michael Troup says
As a periodic contributor who gauges his own success by whether the posted piece generated conversation, I’m torn on the policy. Productive comments are productive comments. On the other hand, if the goal is to position the product as an online newspaper, then stripping us of our masks makes us acountable for our words and keeps the focus on the message, not the messenger.
Beverly Sutton Lawrence says
“Mark Twain” “Lewis Carroll” “Voltaire” “Ayn Rand” “George Orwell” “George Eliot” “Molière” “George Sand” So tell me, CTSpy, just how do you intend to insure that each and every poster is using a ‘real’ name? Are you going to require some sort of microchip be implanted under the poster’s skin, and have some sort of scanner be made part of an application, that prevents said poster from adding their comments unless the microchip matches the poster’s DNA? Be serious. Since when is a ‘pen name’ socially unacceptable? I can fully appreciate the need for keeping conversations ‘civil’. On most websites that include the possibility of adding comments, there is an EDITOR responsible for monitoring the ‘conversations’. That editor is usually assisted by a ‘complaint’ or ‘abuse report’ button … making the conversational/responding community itself responsible for the overall ‘civility’. Anonymity is not a way to hide from ‘ownership’ of one’s opinion … it is a way to make adding comments ‘free’ from the influence of undue pressure from those (family, friends, employers, etc.,) who might have a differing view of the discussed subjects. Any readers who find the comments of a specific contributor ‘offensive’ have the ease of simply ignoring said offender, and concentrating only on the comments of contributors who have something to say, and can say it well. IHMO, what you are actually doing with this ‘new’ policy (which lacks practical application, as I’ve pointed out) is shirking an editor’s responsibility, and adding an unnecessary form of censorship.
Kevin Shertz says
Beverly, The Spy is pretty much now adhering to the same editorial standard as most print media.
For example, send a letter to the Kent County News without a way for them to verify your identity… it won’t be printed.
Is that censorship? I don’t believe it is… it’s the essence of editorial review.
Any one who disagrees with this policy is always welcome to establish their own web site… it’s a free country, after all.
Beverly Sutton-Lawrence says
Yup, certainly it’s true: CTSpy’s website; thus, CTSpy’s right to write the rules. But, it seems my question was not really answered … just how is Chestertown Spy intending to ‘verify’ the identity of its correspondents, particularly when such correspondents are not sending in an article for publication, or a ‘letter to the editor’, but rather, just replying to some contributed item?
And, in your reply, Kevin, it seems my point regarding the long standing tradition of using ‘pen names/aliases’ was neatly avoided. Am I to understand that Chestertown Spy would not be interested in posting contributions by authors or essayist the likes of Mark Twain or Molière, because these individuals, and thousands of others like them, wrote under a pen name?
It was my understanding that the issue is civility, not signatures or identities – how is CTSpy making the leap from one issue to the other? BTW, although most newspapers will verify the identity of a letter writer, most will give the letter writer anonymity, if it is requested, because of issues previously mentioned by other correspondents, here – ‘retribution’, ‘family or friend’ conflicts, problems with employers, etc.
What most websites – particularly ‘news report’ websites or ‘blog’ type sites – require, is registration to post a reply to an article. With that registration, a verifiable email address is required – and a ‘User Name’ is required – but that name is ‘whatever’ you wish (often limited to a specific number of ‘characters’ or ‘keystrokes’ – you can use your own name, if you wish, but you can also be ‘creative’ with the ‘pen name’ you choose.)
Again, the issue seemed to be civility, not identity. I fail to understand just how CTSpy will be able to prevent its correspondents from making up identities – and therefore, I fail to understand the point, at all.
Kevin Shertz says
Beverly, having actually used pen names on this site — when it first launched — I’m actually not dodging your issue at all. This subject has come up in the past, and I have defended the practice (for example, Ben Franklin deployed avatars such as “Silence Dogood” in the 18th Century to great acclaim.)
Let’s go into “Wayback Machine” — for all you Rocky and Bullwinkle (Sherman and Peabody) Fans — and see what I had to say about this last year:
https://www.chestertownspy.com/publisher-note-a-comment-on-comments/
My response assumed you were noting the following in Dave Wheelan’s original post:
“For those who feel they are not able to voice opinions publicly without retribution or other consequences, the Spy will find a safe way to ensure those points of view are expressed.”
“The Spy” is more than capable of exercising “editorial judgment” on the comment submissions they receive… and I’m willing to bet they’ve already been doing so prior on many occasions to this announcement.
We are a small community, and people would be pretty freaked out if they knew how capable web sites were of obtaining their visitor’s identities and the other sites they’ve visited.
I don’t mean to freak anybody out, but if you think you really have anonymity on the internet to a highly motivated party… ha ha ha ha ha ha… there is no anonymity
Beverly Sutton-Lawrence says
Good morning, Kevin Re: “…. if you think you really have anonymity on the internet to a highly motivated party …”
I’m not fully versed on such laws, but I’m reasonably certain such a ‘highly motivated party’, unless a member of one of our duly appointed law enforcement agencies, acting with a court authorised search warrant, has a title … the title is ‘hacker’ … and possibly ‘stalker’ applies, as well ;~} I’m not referring to simply identifying the computer’s “address” – I’m referring to actually using IP information to try to get what is basically personal identity information.
“For those who feel they are not able to voice opinions publicly without retribution or other consequences, the Spy will find a safe way to ensure those points of view are expressed.”
IMHO, the simple way for CTSpy to employ a safe way to ensure that posters will be free from the restraint of potential retribution is to allow respondents to register a pen name, and use that name consistently. Compares favourably, IMHO, to the no doubt complex way for CTSpy to insure that posters are using a legitimate, legal identity when posting simple replies to articles or essays published herein [especially as such a procedure seems it might include a possible violation of the individual’s internet security]. For example, how exactly have you determined whether I actually am Beverly Sutton-Lawrence (other than the simple explanation … ‘Who would make up such a silly name?’)?
At any rate, as you pointed out, it’s CTSpy’s site; they who pay the piper call the tune. I’ll continue to read (even ‘tho I don’t personally live in ‘God’s county’; but then you already know that, huh … ), but I will miss some of the anonymous comments. I won’t miss comments that were not civil, whether they were anonymous or not, as I never paid them any attention, anyway. But that’s just me … I’m old enough and intelligent enough to not need a ‘filter’ like ‘poster’s actual identity’ to ‘protect’ me from the madding crowd – and I suppose it’s reasonable to say I am a bit surprised at CTSpy not recognising that ability in all its readers and correspondents.