I hear very regular complaints about the behavior of people posting comments on the stories at KansasCity.com. In fact, I've seen three just this morning.
Here's a newsflash: Sadly, lots of people use the anonymity of the Internet to be rude, spiteful, vindictive and deceptive.
It's a headache for many Website operators. Some topics are especially likely to generate nastiness: Crime and race are always particularly hot ones, obviously. The rivalry between MU and KU generates some of the most childish behavior I've ever seen, spilling over into comments about stories that have nothing to do with sports whatsoever.
Editors at KansasCity.com don't moderate the comments, but there is a link to "Report as Violation" with every comment. You can't police the Internet, and it's too bad that people can't keep their personal profanity and indecency filters operational.
This again points up the problem with sites like Wikipedia that encourage people to post content without identifying themselves: The cloak of anonymity gives people a forum not to put their money where their mouth is. It's all mouth, no money.
Don't Feed the Trolls
Derek,
Here's more information about the phenomena you describe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Kraske and his confidential sources.
Steve Kraske will probably use confidential sources a lot less in the future. He is tap dancing faster than Larry Craig in a men’s room trying to explain how he could have been so wrong in relying on information from unnamed Morrison “confidants and aides.” Yet one more example of the risk in using confidential sources. If those people had been told that their names would be attached to their predictions, they would have been far less likely to offer their incorrect opinions.
I appreciate the response, but...
I disagree with the suggestion that the Star’s use of anonymous sources is rare. As an example, consider the Joe Posnanski column. (I understand football doesn’t rise to the level of healthcare or war and peace, but the journalistic standards ought to be very similar.) He often uses anonymous sources, with a classic example being the extreme use he made of them in his 11/19/07 column. Now, really, did Posnanski believe that the quoted Chiefs personnel would suffer “significant retaliation” for stating the obvious, i.e., the Chiefs are a terrible team this season? If I looked a little bit, I could find quotes where the GM and the Coach were saying exactly the same thing. He gave them anonymity simply because they asked, not because there was any real threat of retaliation. In my humble opinion, it was simply journalistic laziness on his part that he did not find more players that he could quote. And, I think Posnanski is not the only reporter who commits that sin.
From Joe Posnanski’s 11/19/07 column “Chiefs’ conservative offense inspires lots of grumbling:”
"Frustration bubbles now. It had to happen. Coaches, players, fans, you name it — when you score 13 offensive touchdowns in 10 games, everybody will start to get testy. They were plenty testy after Sunday’s loss in Indianapolis.
“We’re going to have to blow it all up,” one anonymous Chiefs insider said.
“Something is going to have to change, because this is a joke,” said another.
“I can take losing,” said a third. “But I can’t take not trying.” "
Question:
If you think that comments made anonymously are “all mouth, no money,” then do you also oppose the Star’s use of confidential sources? Most of the time (including this comment from me), people posting comments are just letting off steam (admittedly, often in a totally disgusting manner) and are not making news. I understand that the Star and other papers would have fewer stories if they excluded confidential sources. But, the up side would be that the remaining stories would have more credibility because the reader would know which individuals are providing the information.
Re: Question
VOR, there's a big difference between anonymous comments and an unnamed source. Check out the Code of Ethics to the left here for The Star's policy. They're very rare, and they're only allowed when approved by the assigning editor and managing editor. And in all cases, the identity of the source is well known to the people working on the story. You are certainly free to disagree with The Star's policy, but it's really apples and oranges here.
But for the record, I don't oppose unnamed sources in principle, but they must be used very judiciously. There are times when a person could suffer significant retaliation if they come forth with information, and I think it's appropriate for journalists to protect their sources this way on occasion. Again, I'd be singing a very different tune if it were an everyday occurence, though.