As I’ve said in other posts here, I often find myself very torn between the benefits of forums, blogs and reader comment features on the Web versus the sometimes savage, close-minded nature of posts on those sites.
I sometimes find myself contemplating what thought processes must lead people to such points of view and forms of expression. Today I read a terrific column by Michael R. Fancher in the Seattle Times about a difficult news decision the Seattle newspapers grappled with. Fancher mentions a book I’d never heard of that’s now on my buy-soon list: "How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living," by Rushworth Kidder (Harper Collins, $12.95).
While describing the Seattle papers’ decisions and news process, Fancher notes what he terms the frequent "absolutist" nature of commentators on the Web. I found his column thought-provoking and thought you might want to check it out.
– Sherry
One Comment
Yes I think there’s a fine line between lively discussion that can produce ideas people might not have considered when there are more voices involved, and the serious risk of giving a wide public forum to views that are hateful. I don’t think you need a comments box on every story, particularly when featuring people who are not public figures, and who might be hurt by the vitriol that often follows the story. I personally would probably decline to be interviewed by the Eagle, since I don’t need to see myself ripped apart by people who don’t know me and seem to thrive on sitting by their computers and spewing hostility.