Just What is Good Journalism? One Man's Opinion

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:35 AM

We at Opinion 250 often get accused of "yellow journalism" because we have pulled comments off the site.

Now just step back for a moment and think about it.

People make comments but are allowed to hide behind a fictitious name; the person who is on the receiving end does not have the benefit of standing before the accuser and making his point known. That by the way is the reason we have courts.

So what is the benefit of having people comment under a fictitious name?

Well if it were used in the proper vein, it could be used as a whistle blower type of venue. Still, accusations must be proven to be correct.

There are people who like to slag people on this site. They do so without ever identifying themselves.

I wonder if they were forced to offer up their true identities, would the general public put any stock in what they have to say?

Ensuring comments are within legal boundaries and are respectful of other participants is not easy. We agonize with this problem each and every day.

It takes up the most time and the most effort when it comes to trying to police.

For example the person who wrote a comment about the police officer in Vanderhoof could have said "in his opinion" the police officer should go to jail for shooting the Vanderhoof man. The police officer indeed shot the guy and was not charged. That is no different than suggesting the judge who went to jail for soliciting young prostitutes should have been given more jail time, or for that matter, a life sentence.

The fact of the matter is, the law is the law. There are some things that cannot be allowed because they violate the laws of the land. There is also the matter of good taste.

It is doubtful we would have the issues of foul language or legal issues if people were forced to use their real names. Then again, people may not be willing to say anything if they fear they will be personally attacked.

Before screaming "yellow journalism" one had best take a deep breath, rethink what had been written, and understand that if the comment was pulled, it was because of bad language or, more likely, legal issues.

All who post comments should ask themselves one question: Would I say the same thing if I had to put my real name to it?

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:35 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 27 2007 3:50 PM

Ooooh good write up. Well i've used my real name and my real full name in one comment as I thought people would take my comments more seriously maybe????Yet i'm sure I probably still said things I shouldn't have and very sorry if I did. I guess what we all should do is read article and the comments already made if any then walk away for five min. and come back to say our two cents. Maybe we should act like a coroners inquest and leave blame out of it and use more respectful words. I know I was bashed on here but you know I just told myself dont worry about it they don't know you and I let it go. Thought well I guess everyone has a right to their feelings no matter if I like them or not. :) Love this site. I find I check this site now before checking my email.....GASP!!!!

Posted by: diplomat on March 27 2007 6:26 PM

There are *members only* discussion groups on the Internet (Yahoo for instance) that allow the moderator to scrutinize postings before they are accepted by him/her and posted to the group.

In other words, there is a time delay for this to happen so contents may be controlled.

When one joins the group one agrees to adhere to the code of conduct, which is emailed to the applicant.

If one breaks the rules, one gets kicked out.

Posted by: Gofaster on March 27 2007 6:48 PM

There are times I have to admit in the heat of the moment, having read an article that really set me off, I have said things the wrong way and used the wrong words. I tend to be a little too opinionated at times and on other times I just like to stir the pot to see what rises...so Ben I plead guilty and will try and be more seletive on what and how I say things in the future....

Posted by: charles on March 27 2007 6:50 PM

Well written article Ben. Describing the situation as you have just done in this article should go a long way in reducing the amount of libelous posts on the site.

In a civilized society such as ours the laws of the land must be followed.

If I was you though, I would have posted this article a little later in the day so that it would have stayed on Page 1 of your site for a longer time.

Posted by: owl on March 27 2007 10:16 PM

�There are people who like to slag people on this site. They do so without ever identifying themselves. I wonder if they were forced to offer up their true identities, would the general public put any stock in what they have to say?�

I would tend to say that the notion of �It is not what you say, it is who says it that is important� is dominant in society. More to the point, it says:�What you say sounds reasonable, but based on who you are, I would have to discount it.� It is a judgment based on prejudice - prejudgment.

Because an NDP MLA says something it is typically rejected by someone of the opposite political persuasion while the same opinion by a Liberal MLA is automatically gospel. In my opinion, we have too much of that in our society.

I prefer to judge the quality of a comment based on the comment, not on who makes the comment.

Anonymity is nothing unusual when honest opinion is sought. Opinion made in public is often couched for political correctness.

We vote anonymously, not only in politics, but often on Boards. Council and legislature votes are a matter of public record of who voted which way. But which Councillor voted for whom to appoint people onto City Committees and Commissions is not. We fill out opinion polls anonymously. Complaints to RCMP, Bylaws enforcement, etc are not totally anonymous, but they are private and not part of the normal public record. In an FOY request they will typically be struck out.

In some instances, anonymity allows supressed opinions to come out. It brings out what people really think, not what they want people to think about them.

Posted by: Chadermando on March 28 2007 7:49 AM

I think things are managed pretty good here. Ben lets people say their opinion from my perspective, and having an opinion without being liable is not much to ask. I think things are fair. A good warning from time to time should keep it top of mind for those that get carried away.

Posted by: diplomat on March 28 2007 8:03 AM

Owl, well said. However, it should be easy to screen out all offensive and/or actionable posts before the ever appear on the site, as I explained in a previous posting.

That is the obvious solution; the website can be modified to direct all posts to a file from which they may be released for actual publishing - or not.

Posted by: caranmacil on March 28 2007 9:31 AM

I think that while screening posts prior to posting them is the safe way to go it might also take something away from the excellence of this site. The time delay, if significant would affect ones opportunity to comment and still have it read (peoples attention spans being what they are). I have read the post here off and on and though i have not always agreed with them (as you all may have noticed) i would agree with chadermando that the site is well managed. Also in all honesty, i would have to say that the posts were more polite and welll thought out than what you see on most sites on the net.

Posted by: whynotyou on March 28 2007 9:33 AM

Owl, I'm with you. If the comment has quality - it shouldn't matter who "said it". And Diplomat - I would tend to back Ben on his request for all of us to "pay heed" to the things we say. It is just my opinion, but I do believe he did not intend to have to "babysit" this site. We are all supposed to be adults.

It is a good place to vent our anger, seek reassurance and broaden our views by opening our minds to the opinions of others. It is not a place to "bash" the opinions of others just because we do not agree with them. It is also not a place to slander and make accusations about things we really do not know everything about.

If we are not "witness" to something, then all of our opinions are based on "heresay" regardless of where we "read" the information. In order to bare the facts and only the facts we would have to "quote", otherwise, we are only offering our opinions and/or perceptions of the facts as we have "read them". This is allowed, so long as we admit and authenticate that they are "just our opinions".

In one of my original postings regarding the "Ian Bush" incident I stated that I did not know how he could have been shot in the "back of the head" as a self defense move by an officer. I have since, and only by being open to the possibility, come up with a scenario wherein it actually could be possible for Ian to have been "shot in the back of the head" under the circumstance offered (self defense). We may never know the truth, but in my opinion - it is still sad that a young man lost his life unnecessarily and that it did not have to turn out the way it did.

Posted by: diplomat on March 28 2007 10:23 AM

Well, you do make good points. I do indeed back Ben all the way, but it still happens that very offensive posts are published when they could have been deemed unacceptable and not published.

They didn't bother me personally, but it does appear to raise the question of legal implications.

My comments in respect to the topic are intended to be helpful - not argumentative.

The majority pay heed, but there are some who don't and probably never will. And, yes, it is entirely up to Ben how he handles that.

"It is a good place to vent our anger, seek reassurance and broaden our views by opening our minds to the opinions of others."

Venting anger may be seen as provocative to others who disagree with the other one about being angered in the first place about something.

We all have different perceptions about the world we live in.

I have been accused of bigotry, bias and bending the truth (lying) in replies to some of my posts (which had simply stated verifiable facts) - none of those replies bothered me a bit and I am not upset about letting the chips fall wherever it may be.

It's an open opinion forum, after all.

Posted by: whynotyou on March 28 2007 3:44 PM

I hear you loud and clear diplomat, there will always be a chance that someone may post something that is "unacceptable" and it will get through. In the heat of the moment one can say something out of anger or frustration that is more of an accusation than it is an opinion.

Your suggestion, though time consuming, is a valid one. My suggestion would be that, all who register for posting privies must register with their real names, addresses, phone numbers, etc, and they can then assume a secret identity but accept responsibility for all of their postings. Ben has my real name if he has access to the info required for posting comments here, email, etc.

I truly do enjoy reading these posts and I have on many occasions learned from some of them. I love a good banter with someone who is intelligent and of an open mind, which I find many like that on this site!!

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 28 2007 6:40 PM

All of our different opinions in my opinion :) make the world go round :) Myself I guess by making the comments I do hope that people that can make change (the ones that hold the actual power) read this site and see our concerns and yet also see that we are willing to fight for what we believe in. Anger keeps me strong and so do all of these different opinions. Fuels my fire!!! Just ask my mother inlaw ;) lol I must learn to be more tactful.

Posted by: Chester on March 28 2007 9:03 PM

The most damage I have ever caused another person and the most problems I have created for myself have come from my tongue.

The spoken or written word can be devastating and the damage can be irrepairable.

Words are like an arrow. Once released, they can never be retrieved. So often, I wish I would have held my tongue and cooled down before I shared my thoughts. Sharing our thoughts while stoked up with emotion can be very counterproductive.

My father-in-law taught me that there are two ways to attract bees. One by kicking over the beehive and the other with honey. How often have we resorted to kicking over the beehive to create change? Chester

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 28 2007 9:45 PM

I love your comment Chester. Please tell me how to make honey when you know the hive is out of reach?

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 28 2007 9:53 PM

I love your comment Chester. Please tell me how to make honey when you know the hive is out of reach?

Posted by: diplomat on March 29 2007 11:43 AM

heidi 1555: "Myself I guess by making the comments I do hope that people that can make change (the ones that hold the actual power) read this site and see our concerns..."

I do not believe that the people of the City Council and the mayor (who can indeed make a change!) read any of our comments!

Case in point:

Julia Serup's letter published today in the local paper made real good reading. It again raised the issue of REPAIRING the Cameron Street Bridge for less than 800,000 dollars and making it usable for another twenty years rather than pumping 500,000 per year for twenty years into a replacement of the superstructure and borrowing 6 million dollars to do so.

We have posted dozens of comments here about this matter and asked valid questions but the mayor and the council have never mentioned or seriously included the repair option in their deliberations!

I like Ms. Serup's comment that 500,000 per year (for twenty years!) would sure do a lot to repair some of the potholed streets in our fair city.

Ah, well...crunch, bang, bang, crunch....

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 29 2007 12:17 PM

I know i'm a total dreamer and you need to add a few more bangs in with your crunches. Maybe you could tell me how to attract bees with honey?

Posted by: owl on March 29 2007 1:25 PM

Diplomat .... I read the letter ... I am for repairing the bridge rather than building a new one ..... but the letter did leave out a few facts.

1. the bridge is not structurally sound and cannot be used for any traffic, even light traffic as she implied .. in other words, no engineer will take the risk, seeing a couple of rotten areas and not imaging the entire bridge to see each connection and member, and give a professional stamp of approval.
2. if the bridge were repaired, there is not just a one time cost of doing it. The repair would only be in the one area discovered. The ongoing repair because of the nature of the bridge would have to continue at $150,000 to $200,000 per year. While a new bridge will have some maintenance, it will not be as high as that, especially in the first few years.

Her letter was far too simplistic.

Posted by: diplomat on March 29 2007 3:51 PM

"Her letter was far too simplistic."

Maybe so, but the main thrust of her letter, in my humble opinion was right on.

Why has neither the council nor the mayor picked up and at least included in the available options the one suggested by his own traffic manager, namely to repair (for now) the bridge at a cost of $ 726,000 dollars?

We were presented with options, but the one that would have cost the least, the one that would have been the speediest, the one that would have (by now) gotten the dangerous traffic off 5th Avenue was given the silent treatment - it was ignored.

Why?