|
![[Fort Scott Tribune]](http://www.fstribune.com/images/nameplate.gif)
| Saturday, August 30, 2008 | Online Reader |
|
Are you going to do something or not?
Posted Friday, January 4, 2008, at 10:17 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
One of my tasks is to read the comments on The Fort Scott Tribune and the Nevada Daily Mail Web sites.
It is always an interesting read. It is really fascinating to see how people respond to stories and blogs. Readers' responses add a lot of meat and context to the stories. It is neat to watch conversations unfold between readers and reporters. There is a lot of emotion, passion and very good points made.
And there is a lot of ranting with nothing to back it up.
I see a lot of negativity on various topics with readers just going at someone or a situation with as much negative force and insults as possible.
My question is, "What are you going to do about it?"
Criticizing someone isn't going to change the situation. Are you prepared to answer the call to action that will do anything about what you are commenting on? I think it's good to comment on any injustice to inform others on what's going on, but to continue on about how bad something or someone is really isn't going to do anything. Where should your energy be focused in order to really make a difference? Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics Good Night, and Good Luck -- and God Bless(1 ~ 9:19 AM, Jul 14)
Meth Watch
Bad Attitude
Recognizing Your Past
A Plan Perfectly Carried Out
|
Mailing list
Enter your email address to join our daily headline mailing list:
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.fstribune.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Mrs. Goodwin,
As I understand your comments, those of us who identify issues should be prepared to do something about them instead of just complain.
I have an issue, and am asking your suggestion on just what I can do myself to resolve it...
The issue is the fact that the City of Fort Scott has ceased in their video taping and broadcasts of City meetings. I have had quite a few citizens approach me with their concerns on this issue too. What do you suggest I, (or we), do that I have not already done which is asking the Commission to consider the issue.
Just how am I supposed to do something about it myself? Do you think if I recorded it and turned it into the Cable company they would accept it? Should I have to spend my own money and time on this? Do I not have a right to "complain" about this without having to have my own plan of action in place?
Please advise, Thanks.
Nick I think making comments about films is a little less controversial then comments about city politics and local issues. Your other forum probably doesn't deter many from its site for having them post their name. I don't think the same can be said about local forums talking about city issues.
I'll be more than happy to fill up your inbox of your email account. Give me the address and I'll start writing. I hope you will actually respond to my comments instead of just glossing over them.
I've seen a consistant theme on the comments, to the effect that the "good old boys system" operates. Many complain that "its not what you do, its who you are in Ft. Scott that determines how you are dealt with." These commenters must be from the ones who think they don't have the prestige to have been dealt with fairly,due to not being in the "in" crowd. Why would you want to cut off even this place to be heard?
I would like to be a cheerleader for everyone who has participated in this conversation. EVERYONE has made really great points. What a great debate.
However, I have to agree with the anonymity point. I don't think that real names would help the matter. Many people only post because of the anonymity and there certainly isn't a problem with that. I hate to think that we live in a community/world that listens to certain people above others, but I've seen it. Anonymity allows those who may not ever stand up to make a point, do so, or those who may never be heard, be heard. It gives people a sense of being free to post what they really want to say. That's the beauty of the commenting on this site.
Plus, it's really impossible to do. We can require fields for people to register, but who's to say we will get their real name anyway? You can type in anything for your name in a required field.
Repeat abusers who really get out of hand with profanity, real personal attacks, airing personal family information or just plain abuse of the site, are blocked. But it has to get pretty ugly first. The reason for this is simple. This is a professional site used by the community. We want it to be appropriate for everyone who logs on and we want to preserve the integrity of the site. That's why readers can police other comments.
What I was really getting at with this blog wasn't so much that people need to expose their true identity, but it was more along the lines of those that continue to beat a dead horse and do nothing else about the issue at hand. I don't necessarily care about who saying what as much as what they are saying. I think it's wonderful to voice an opinion when one feels that something is wrong or unjust, but simply ranting about it is a feeble attempt to get anything done. People should put action behind their words.
And I do hope that people understand the difference between criticism and a personal attack.
I can't find any personal attacks on Mr Graham in this blog.
I do see some very challenging questions from One in an Opinion, but do not consider them to be "personal" attacks.
I do hope the "personal attacks" defense doesn't become a common method used to avoid answering legitimate questions.
This may seem redundit but I want to leave you with a quote from one of the quotes I used earlier in this blog;
"But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences,and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
-- United States Supreme Court decision No. 93-986 April 19, 1995
So instead of clearing up the rumors for the masses you are scared off by one or two that don't believe you?
The problem with city hall is they don't like to give out information. Sure if you get in good with someone there and call them about each and every topic they might give you some sort of answer but there is NOTHING dispersed by the city for the citizens at large so they know whats going on.
I'm sure things are better there now that certain people are gone but the damage of their inactivity and closed door politics still have their effect. Very few things have actually been corrected.
I haven't attacked anyone, yet some have managed to "skirt" around or ignore my quotes from the highest court in our beloved country concerning anonymity.
It is kind of senseless to argue a Supreme court decision considering they are some of the most educated,experienced minds in the world.
No cheerleader for me?
Ha I don't care or need one.
I am confident that many others who read this blog and what I have written are in agreement with me and the Supreme court as well.
Personal attacks are a tactic of one who is losing a debate. So if you find yourself being personally attacked (like I have been too) then you should take it as your opponent having nothing factual or of any substance to claim.
I understand the frustrations of debating politics or other subjects, but in a debate there must be a winner and a loser, and no one likes to lose.
So, for the above reasons I can see why one would no longer respond to message board debates.
Respectfully,
So instead of clearing up the rumors for the masses you are scared off by one or two that don't believe you?
The problem with city hall is they don't like to give out information. Sure if you get in good with someone there and call them about each and every topic they might give you some sort of answer but there is NOTHING dispersed by the city for the citizens at large so they know whats going on.
I'm sure things are better there now that certain people are gone but the damage of their inactivity and closed door politics still have their effect. Very few things have actually been corrected.
It's just pointless to keep posting anything that might include the slightest argument because these threads go absolutely nowhere unless everyone involved wants to fight fair or has an open mind.
Call me a cheerleader if you want, I was simply trying to stay open-minded and say "good point" when a good point was made. That and sometimes it's nice to have someone show a little support when they are being blatantly attacked.
"While you might check the forums you seldom enter into discussions and answer questions from us concerned citizens."
It's a losing battle - any comment would likely immediately be refuted by somebody convinced I was lying or didn't know what I was talking about, no matter what I said. All it takes is one person like that to turn the whole thing into a never-ending argument. I won't even comment on the city politics section of the other website anymore, and stick with the other areas. If people PM me, e-mail me, or call me, I've got no issue talking to them about anything, but my days of getting into public debates over accusations is over.
I used to have a lot of frustration and anger with city politics, and local forums provided an outlet to vent that stuff (even when I just made myself look foolish doing so), but those days are over now. I actually enjoy being a Commissioner now, and feel pretty confident about the future. A lot of things have changed, and I ain't going back to the way they were. I still have SOME hair left on my head, and I'm trying to preserve it as long as possible.
Kenny have you turned into the cheerleader section for this comment board?
Well said Mr. Graham.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society.
The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct.
But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences,
and,
in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
-- United States Supreme Court decision No. 93-986 April 19, 1995
.
.
.
So why not clear up the wrong information for us so we aren't buying into all these false rumors?
While you might check the forums you seldom enter into discussions and answer questions from us concerned citizens.
My intent is was not to discourage people from posting, especially about matters with the City Government. Between this site and others, I'm able to catch a most of the rumors that pop up early enough to get the facts on them before people ask me about them on the street/over the phone/over e-mail. It's something of a handy but discouraging tool (discouraging in seeing stuff get out that is about 180 degrees away from reality).
Honestly, the city gets it pretty easy on the comment section. It's some of the comments about other stories I read that are pretty hardcore in their outright insults and flat-out character assassination that blow me away. Usually the targets are people I barely know or don't know at all, but I feel bad for them.
The no-anonymity rule is something I think should be applied regardless of a website's subject matter - the site I mentioned that I have been going to for over a decade that has the no-anonymous name rule in place is a forum for movie collectors of all people.
Granted I'm not gonna advocate some guy in China railing against their country's various human rights atrocities to post his actual name, but I'd like to think here in small town Kansas there is enough of a system of checks and balances in place that would prevent any retaliation to respectful protest or disagreement.
One In An Opinion,
You make a good point.
If your problem was truly those that post "vicious remarks" then why don't you deal with them on an individual basis instead of going after the identity of everyone.
I think you are using this small problem of a mere few people who do post inappropriate material to try to justify going after a completely different problem and a different group of people to serve your own interests.
Sorry my friend...You won't find your weapons of mass destruction here.
ANONYMITY--
the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government(including Fort Scott) intimidation
or public(including Fort Scott) retaliation.
,
,
,
SUPREME COURT Upholds Anonymity,Free Speech!!!
The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that an ordinance requiring door-to-door petitioners to obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand violates the right of anonymity inherent in the First Amendment freedom of speech.
In November 2001, EPIC, the ACLU, and 14 legal scholars filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing that the ordinance implicates privacy, as well as the First Amendment rights of anonymity, expression, and freedom of association.
.
.
.
Here is just one Quote from the brief;
"Amici have long held anonymity to be a core value protected by the First Amendment, essential to personal privacy,political liberty and intellectual freedom, because it protects those with unpopular ideas from retaliation and suppression.
This document is interesting, not to much legalise, and comparitively short(36 pages) but I found it worthwhile and applicable to todays conversations concerning blogs.
It even goes on to mention that,"there is little doubt that the Framers engaged in anonymous political writing"
As for me, I take delight in siding with our protected First Amendment rights, the Supreme court, EPIC, the ACLU, and the 14 legal scholars!
I know Nick Graham and I'm pretty certain he has no intention of discouraging readers to NOT post. He said nothing that would even merit someone to feel like they shouldn't post.
By wanting real names as usernames is simply asking for accountability for the information posted in this venue since it is accessible to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection.
I do agree that there should be a venue for anonymous tips. The problem is that it's hard to create such a public venue and then allow anyone to post under any name and then separate the fact from the fiction. By using ones real name and causing accountability, there is less of a chance of someone spewing vicious remarks and spreading fire.
The Tribune has an email address, a phone number, a physical address and a mailing address if anyone should feel the need to anonymously inform the editorial staff about the events happening in the area. By using that information the writers can validate fact from fiction and then, if necessary, report on that matter.
This is a public board and it should, at least in my opinion, be a place where everyone can be held accountable for what they type.
People can judge for themselves whether something written here is credible or not without having a name attached to it. Does it really matter who's name it is? Are you judging the person by what their name is or by what information they bring to the discussion?
Some people like to post here and give their opinions no matter how unpopular they might be without the social stigma of public ridicule or negative repercussions.
Many people have used a shielded identity to publicize their thoughts and opinions. Professional writers do it all the time. Also, informants find it useful to use it to protect their family and professional career. Don't forget "Deep Throat" was a person who's information was credible enough to force a president out of office.
Its also kind of ironic that a city commissioner was so quick to come forward and state that he believes that everyone's real name should be attached to their posted opinions. It makes me wonder why he would want to discourage people to come forward with information in a public forum. Does he not like people talking about city issues so openly?
What was it Commissioner Graham? Was it the comments about drugs found in a city vehicle, lack or city organization, top heavy administration, grand jury investigations, failure of the aquatic center proposal, or any other comments that bring to light all the city's problems that you would so desperately like to know the identity of those that post the information?
If someone doesn't want to put their real name on their post then so be it as long as it doesn't violate any of the rules of this website.
One In An Opinion
Yeah, but that's not an absolute truth that must be the rule in every concievable situation.
History shows whistleblowers and anonymous informers have been reliable sources of information that otherwise would not have been available.
Wheat must be harvested before you seperate the grain from the chaff.
information can't be considered credible if there isn't a real name involved...my opinion. anyone could get on here (like they do) and just start spreading filth (like they do) as long as they aren't held accountable.
I think you have made some really good points, but I feel that requiring the use of actual names may not accomplish your long term goals.
While it is great if they do share their own real names, it can and has proven to inhibit the production of news and information as well.
Perhaps a policy of closing a blog to further comments after being judged as completely redundit or exceeds a specific timeline e.g. 4 weeks or so would be more in order.
Dan Doherty aka like2b_onree
Ditto to Nick's comments...
I say enact a policy where users must use their actual names to post. Other forums I frequent have done this for years, and it's amazing how much more courteous things get when the anonymity factor is gone.