Enable (Accountable) Comments

Remember when the primary vehicle for public feedback was the signed letter to the editor? When print media would not publish opinion without a real person stepping up to own their ideas, their rants? (Except for advice columns, where people with personal problems were allowed to remain Shy in Sheboygan or Uncertain in Altoona.)

The internet and its concept, username, changed accessibility to express opinion -- offering immediacy, anonymity, and an unedited forum where poor spelling, intolerance and hatred could thrive. In the media market where I live, a city where people are neither shy nor uncertain, comments are enabled on every print and network television website. Civility was discarded long ago, as contributors snipe at each other, harshly judge people they don’t know, and express hatred for government and people who are different from themselves.

These folks are required to register in order to comment, of course, but that step in the process is meaningless. In the blink of an eye, they assume their avatar – 2Hot4Philly or INoBest123 -- and from behind that shield they shout Kill da Bums! They tell the parents of the hikers being held in prison in Iran that their kids deserve what they got for being so stupid. They want people to be fired or worse. They are emboldened by the delicious knowledge that like giving the finger to an unarmed passing driver, there will be no consequences for their “free speech.”

I think these media sites have caved to what they perceive as an industry-mandated public demand, much in the way that networks have caved by taking on more and more reality shows. A culture that sustains “Tool Academy” also sustains an uncivil national discourse, pandering to the lowest standards of content. Requiring online comments to be submitted under the writer’s real identity does not for a moment make the medium less democratic, only accountable. It’s worth a try.

I write a column for an established online publication that first enabled comments with its 24th issue. It allows user names, but given its content – urban planning, the environment, literary reviews – is less likely to attract the anonymous venom we associate with the daily news. In my latest column, which will go live March 31, I have intentionally tried to start a dialogue by raising questions about the efficacy of art in communicating environmental issues. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, to like my column or to use their real names. But I hope that they will use their names, because a legitimate dialogue depends upon accountability.