Beyond the Beat for tonight

[doggydaddy]

Reading the comments on the show I, too, am intrigued by this question of anonymity and vesting in other people's reactions to what you write/post.

Following the shift in message boards and commenting has been an interesting journey. Many initially heralded anonymity and comments sections because they hoped it would provide honest and free dialogue. Only to discover that some participants weren't interested in that -- or, perhaps more importantly, struggled with being okay with NOT agreeing with another point. And then others who just take it to an ugly place. It's why USAToday eliminated comments on many of Christine Brennan's articles, because when she wrote about women athletes, the responses were so unattractive they 1) were awful to read and 2) seemed to form some sort of "referendum" on the interest in/validity of covering women's sports. I know another writer who regularly swears off message boards because she takes it too personally. I guess, to many degrees, most of us work anonymously. Outside of our rather insular work place, nobody knows what we do or how well we do it. That's the spotlight athletes (and artists) are in. And, because of this country's obsession with sports, that spotlight has expanded to include sportswriters. Where once they could publish something and get a phone call or letter to their editor, now folks have almost direct access to them.

One of the wisest comments I've heard from a writer is that he considers comments PART of his articles. Which means they have to be monitored. He also, if IRRC, has "senior" or "trusted" responders that support the content/tone.

I think, to a degree, we have the here at the 'yard. It doesn't mean we don't push each others' buttons, or that we don't get defensive or impatient. Nor does it mean every post survive the "would I say it to this person's face" test. There are times when I re-read something, and then reconsider. There are times when I'm just straight up snarky. I have learned that sometimes it's worth it to post your thoughts and then leave the thread alone... sometimes.

Seems to me the internet (as it relates to message boards and comments sections) was in it's infancy and is now moving into adolescence. Some of us are moving with it - some not so much. Maybe our mood depends on the day.

I hated everything about your post.

Everything but when you said I was great on the show.....

Wait, you didn't say that.

I hated everything.

I'm having a bad day.

 

[UcMiami]

Thisjustin - nice review of the considerations. I find it interesting that a number of sites are now requiring some form of identification/confirmation of a persons identity before you can post - you can still maintain the general anonymity, but the moderators/owners of the sites have a better idea of who you are and it does seem to inhibit some of the worst behavior.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Thisjustin - nice review of the considerations. I find it interesting that a number of sites are now requiring some form of identification/confirmation of a persons identity before you can post - you can still maintain the general anonymity, but the moderators/owners of the sites have a better idea of who you are and it does seem to inhibit some of the worst behavior.

a lot of blog/comment sites make you post comments thru your Facebook acct which most people use their "real name"... then people google your "real name" and find out all type of information about you. (address, DOB, pending court cases etc.)

 

[DaddyChoc]

its on TV right now... Thursday 8:30am

 

[DobbsRover2]

Other than Meyers' tired trite and standard sniping at we denizens of our mother's basements (and holing up next to a warm dryer following those infrequent Husky losses is wonderfully comforting therapy), the comments have been very informative. And as to the sports journalists of the world, if they feel compelled to come to the BY to steal ideas, they have to realize that occasionally they will stumble into their own personal pile of doggy doo to smear their soles.

 

[meyers7]

Other than Meyers' tired trite and standard sniping at we denizens of our mother's basements (and holing up next to a warm dryer following those infrequent Husky losses is wonderfully comforting therapy), the comments have been very informative

I do what I can.

 

[HuskyNan]

I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

I understand why. If someone came to my office and told me my work was crap and called me names, especially if they did it multiple times, I'd be irate. So, I get that part. The thing is, I don't go to peoples' houses to watch them just to see what they think of my work. And if I threw a hissy fit over what I'd heard, my boss would tell me to suck it up and act like a professional.

 

[meyers7]

I understand why. If someone came to my office and told me my work was crap and called me names, especially if they did it multiple times, I'd be irate. So, I get that part. Thething is, I don't go to peoples' houses to watch them just to see what they think of. my work. And if I threw a hissy fit over what I'd heard, he'd tell me to suck it up and act like a professional.

Good point, nor do you put your work out there for everyone TO comment ON. They were very nice to us. I think it might have been more the threats they didn't like (understandably) and that stuff just carried over to other obnoxious things said about them???? IDK. Does seem like they could be a little tougher skinned???

I ref soccer, and I get yelled at quite often. Most of the time, I just ignore them (parents) cause they don't know what they are talking about anyway. Did have one physical threat, but threw him out.

 

[diggerfoot]

I used to have a blog with semi-political content, semi-political because my focus is on grassroots community, not the nation or state where most politics applies. I had one frequent commenter who I at first did not mind because he was clever and witty. Yet his posts started missing the mark entirely of what my message was while getting more insulting. I would have liked to know who he was in a better attempt to understand and perhaps resolve the disconnect. Otherwise, my choice was simply to ban a commenter who otherwise might offer clever and witty counterpoints. With this background there are two reasons why I sympathize with journalists wanting to know their attackers, and one reason why the sympathy only goes so far.

1. Occupational hazard. Most people would be insulted with things like being called a "scumbag." We can protest that they should avoid reading that if they are going to be "thin-skinned," but researching the Boneyard is now something any responsible sportswriter/caster for UConn should be doing. Doing their job well necessitates they come to a place where they will be insulted. They have to "take it," so to speak, but they don't have to like it; particularly when they can't confront the attacker as they would if the post was not anonymous.

2. Family members. A concern expressed was that Joe's daughters might read some particularly awful comments. Having Internet-savvy daughters myself I certainly can identify with that concern. Once again we can refer to this as an occupational hazard, but one a person understandably would abhor. Under an older, less anonymous system of letters to the editors, etc., if someone goes way over the line you can at least confront them about it (or not print the letter), while both you and loved ones are better able to consider the source. As others have mentioned perhaps we can get to that point even on the Internet. Indeed, I think something like the "facebook" solution might be even better than a name and address.

Yet an online forum "is what it is," and results in us policing our own house. We chastise; we ignore; moderators ban. There are consequences within the forum for people stepping over the line, which is the most you can expect from us. Given that, I would turn that around on them and ask how are they being policed by their own for "turning the volume up too loud." I'm not saying they are not, I would just want to make clear that policing "by their own" is the responsible safeguard and response to being out of line, whether posting on the Internet or writing a column. There should be consequences either way imposed "by their own" that people know happens reliably.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Digger you're a talker... you and DD spoke well!

 

[UcMiami]

Digger - nice points, but I would say being either a public figure or a prominent citizen in a community is inherently a burden on family - especially for kids in local schools as they may parrot comments their parents make 'my dad says your dad is ____' kind of things. There are also some positives as they can gain social status from being the child of ____. I would think the internet reading of anonymous criticism is probably a notch below the peer to peer issue. And sports writer is nothing like say 'POTUS'. I cannot imagine how the kids of Presidents deal with the constant vitriol on just about every news outlet, let alone internet.