Free Press vs Free Speech

Anonymity in the media, especially the print media, is fairly new, and many journalists are uncomfortable and unhappy with it. The days of publishing a few signed (and often edited) responses to editorial content have been replaced with the ability for hundreds of readers to spout off without fear of censorship or detection. Bill Reader investigates the disconnect over the “civility” of anonymity between the authors of several essays who think it is missing and the hundreds of responses to those essays who clearly disagree:

The journalists also used a number of derogatory terms when referring to anonymous writers. The use of such descriptors as “reptilian,” “swine,” and, of course, “troll” goes a step further than devaluing anonymous opinions; it denigrates—in fact dehumanizes—anonymous writers themselves. Such rhetoric goes beyond other terms the journalists used, such as “haters” and “bigots,” which focus on objectionable statements without dehumanizing the writers who made those statements. The use of dehumanizing rhetoric to describe anonymous writers suggests the journalists may have feelings of enmity toward anonymous writers in general. Furthermore, the “trolls”are not cast as unpleasant individuals to be avoided, but rather as enemies to be opposed and cast out. The essays reflect a decades-old journalistic meme that audience feedback forums are intended to be public spaces for polite, articulate discourse, the romanticized ideal of the village square. Singal suggested that online forums had not lived up to the village square metaphor, but instead had become “something of a virtual O.K. Corral.” Pitts lamented that, originally, online newspaper forums “must have seemed an inspiration kissed by the spirit of Jefferson: a free public space where each of us could have his or her say.” In announcing the Buffalo News would be banning anonymous commenting, Sullivan wrote, “The aim of publishing reader comments, all along, has been to have a free-flowing discussion of stimulating and worthwhile ideas—something of a virtual village square. Now that people’s names will be attached to their ideas, we’re hoping that aim, finally, will be achieved.”

The June 2010 column in the Buffalo News announcing its pending ban on anonymity generated 641 comments; an editor’s column six months later extolled the “success” of the ban, but drew just 12 comments, one of which stated, “Articles that would have had hundreds of comments now get none. . . . The site is now BORING. Most articles have no comments, and the few that do have one or two.” The outcome of the ban in Buffalo may illustrate a basic point of disconnect between journalists and the public—when it comes to audience feedback, many journalists may prefer quality over quantity, but many of those who use such forums seem willing to tolerate substandard writing and vitriol if it encourages broader public participation.

Reader, B. (2012). Free Press vs. Free Speech? The Rhetoric of "Civility" in Regard to Anonymous Online Comments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 495-513.

Back to Privacy and Anonymity on the Web