Anonymity and Vitriol

The Pantagraph Comments Section

Aka: You Don’t Know My Name, So I Can Post What I Want

For several years, this subject has been a thorn in my side. If you are a regular reader (or even a casual one) of The Pantagraph on-line, you’ve likely come across the comments section after most articles. And if you are at all like me, you are appalled at the hatred displayed in some of the blatant vitriol allowed. In my case, the comments I found most disconcerting were concerning bicycles, Obama, LBGT rights, college sports, politics and politicians, climate change, traffic in BloNo, …..apparently just about any subject is ripe for targeting with foul comments. I believe one of the biggest factors enabling these comments is Lee Enterprises (The Pantagraph’s parent company) policy of allowing complete anonymity  for the commenters. This policy allows individuals to post things that I cannot imagine any civil person uttering to a fellow human in today's society.

Apparently I am not alone in my distaste of this practice. Over a month ago an online petition was circulated asking the the policy be updated to require commenters use their real names. I didn’t think this had much chance to actually change the paper, but at least a few of us could let our collective voices be heard. So...I digitally signed the petition, and, to be sure The Pantagraph would hear our complaints, I shared a link to the petition on the paper’s Facebook page. I was surprised to actually receive a response. The following day an editor replied with the suggestion I write a letter to the paper with my grievances, and then the matter may advance from there. “Very cool,” I thought, and sat down in front of the keyboard to author my letter.

Fast-forward just over a month… apparently when the editor suggested I write a letter, it was his way of just blowing me off. I made the effort, spent some of my valuable time, and wrote what I thought an appropriate letter for publication...and, silence. Nothing. Nada. This was the first time I’d written anything for public publication, and bam. Not worthy of print...in The Pantagraph. Ouch. I could handle a rejection by The New York Times, but The Pantagraph?

My only guess is that, in today's digital publication world, money rules supreme, and Lee Enterprises can see that the comments sections draw in readers. Whether right or wrong, these readers (and posters) are receiving ads each and every time they visit the comments, and the publisher gets a fraction of a cent, which added up enough times is how money is made. Every ad, every view, means more money in the corporate coffer, and these publications appear to be there to make money, not to inform the public. Perhaps, instead of calling The Pantagraph a “newspaper,” we ought to call it a cash generator.

Ah. but I digress...look below, and see my original post to the paper’s Facebook page, the editor’s response, and lastly my yet-to-be-published (or not-worthy-of-publishing) letter to the editor:

My original post:

Feb 13, 2017

The editor’s response:

Feb 14, 2017

(edited for anonymity)

My letter to the editor:

Feb 15, 2017

Sir(s)

I would like to express my thoughts regarding the comments section in The Pantagraph on-line. As many have said, the policy of Lee Enterprises (The Pantagraph's parent company) to allow anonymous screen names for commenters has gotten out of hand. This anonymity provided permits a select few to reply with hatred and vitriol toward their target of the day. I am aware that the paper does police the comments, and will delete the most offensive, but often after the vile comment has been seen by many. While I wholeheartedly support our freedom of speech, allowing posts from behind a veil of anonymity does nothing to further healthy discourse. The Pantagraph needs to change its policy, and either require commenters use their true name (as I am required to in my letter here), or take down the comments section altogether.

Respectfully,
Michael "Mick" Hannah