Free speech includes risks, rewards
The Beaumont Enterprise has guidelines and limitations about what it will and will not print on its pages. Good taste, fairness and truth are among the principles that guide publication. But this ISN’T the newspaper. The Web is a whole new world with a completely different set of rules – or no rules at all.
Last month a reader complained about comments on one story on BeaumontEnterprise.com and the fact that the comment section had become increasingly nasty and personal. My best suggestion to her was to stop commenting and ignore what other people were saying and it was likely to stop . . . eventually.
Quite frankly, we’re not thrilled with some of our readers’ comments either. We’re not used to seeing those words associated with our stories. In fact, as trained print journalists, those words set off all kinds of bells and whistles in our brains. But that’s the point; this ISN’T print journalism, so the same set of rules simply doesn’t apply.
Sometimes we would like the option of screaming into our computers, “Can you just be nice? Do you have to be so (pick one or more) (a) mean (b) rude (c) vulgar (d) narrow-minded?”
Our readers, who continue to read and comment on our stories and the comments of others, obviously are showing us that they appreciate the open forum for discussion. We want to encourage that exchange of opinions and ideas, not squelch them so they go away or censor them so they only reflect what editors might feel is politically correct. That’s not our job. Instead it is our job to motivate and foster that exchange of varying opinions.
If our Web page is going to be a place of free thought and free commentary, as it should be, we can’t be the arbiters of good taste, judgment, or in most cases even truth. If we had to verify the legitimacy of every statement made in every comment there would BE no time to publish a print edition of this newspaper.
Though we have an editor who abhors the word “policy,” feeling it is too rigid and doesn’t allow for every circumstance, we have now posted a “practice” statement on our Web site. It says: “The Enterprise welcomes the free expressions of opinions and ideas from the community on the Comments and Forums sections of our Web site. The Enterprise allows all comments to be posted on our Web site unedited unless they conflict with Texas Libel Laws.” We also try to place some controls on personal attacks.
In addition, we make an effort to make our readers aware that they may see something offensive in the comments with a warning, "NOTE: The comments below contain profanity."
Some readers have complained that students researching school papers, who might stumble across some of this “rough” language, shouldn’t be exposed to it. My response as a parent is, trust me, kids these days have already heard and seen these words, very early in life. Parents just need to counsel them on such inappropriate words and try to serve as a better example.
My response as a journalist is. They can find much worse (with photos) on MySpace.
So, when you see expletives you find offensive or racial epithets that appall you, sing the national anthem or say the pledge of allegiance (unlike one Vidor student) and celebrate the fact that we live in America and that’s what it’s all about.
Journalists have a constitutional responsibility to encourage and facilitate freedom of expression, even expression that makes some people uncomfortable. Our job, especially in the envelope-pushing era of the Internet, is not to judge the worth of people's comments. We're sorry if that offends.
Last month a reader complained about comments on one story on BeaumontEnterprise.com and the fact that the comment section had become increasingly nasty and personal. My best suggestion to her was to stop commenting and ignore what other people were saying and it was likely to stop . . . eventually.
Quite frankly, we’re not thrilled with some of our readers’ comments either. We’re not used to seeing those words associated with our stories. In fact, as trained print journalists, those words set off all kinds of bells and whistles in our brains. But that’s the point; this ISN’T print journalism, so the same set of rules simply doesn’t apply.
Sometimes we would like the option of screaming into our computers, “Can you just be nice? Do you have to be so (pick one or more) (a) mean (b) rude (c) vulgar (d) narrow-minded?”
Our readers, who continue to read and comment on our stories and the comments of others, obviously are showing us that they appreciate the open forum for discussion. We want to encourage that exchange of opinions and ideas, not squelch them so they go away or censor them so they only reflect what editors might feel is politically correct. That’s not our job. Instead it is our job to motivate and foster that exchange of varying opinions.
If our Web page is going to be a place of free thought and free commentary, as it should be, we can’t be the arbiters of good taste, judgment, or in most cases even truth. If we had to verify the legitimacy of every statement made in every comment there would BE no time to publish a print edition of this newspaper.
Though we have an editor who abhors the word “policy,” feeling it is too rigid and doesn’t allow for every circumstance, we have now posted a “practice” statement on our Web site. It says: “The Enterprise welcomes the free expressions of opinions and ideas from the community on the Comments and Forums sections of our Web site. The Enterprise allows all comments to be posted on our Web site unedited unless they conflict with Texas Libel Laws.” We also try to place some controls on personal attacks.
In addition, we make an effort to make our readers aware that they may see something offensive in the comments with a warning, "NOTE: The comments below contain profanity."
Some readers have complained that students researching school papers, who might stumble across some of this “rough” language, shouldn’t be exposed to it. My response as a parent is, trust me, kids these days have already heard and seen these words, very early in life. Parents just need to counsel them on such inappropriate words and try to serve as a better example.
My response as a journalist is. They can find much worse (with photos) on MySpace.
So, when you see expletives you find offensive or racial epithets that appall you, sing the national anthem or say the pledge of allegiance (unlike one Vidor student) and celebrate the fact that we live in America and that’s what it’s all about.
Journalists have a constitutional responsibility to encourage and facilitate freedom of expression, even expression that makes some people uncomfortable. Our job, especially in the envelope-pushing era of the Internet, is not to judge the worth of people's comments. We're sorry if that offends.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 1:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home