There's been some lively exchanges about local news issues among folks such as "Westport," "Ffjakewood," "Donor," "Agassiz Rock" and "Gutless" over the last few weeks.
It's come on the gloucestertimes.com comment boards, touching on our city elections, the city's treatment of veterans on the Fire Department's Civil Service hiring lists, and a host of other issues.
Who are these people? I have to confess I really don't know. But I and our online readers recognize them as some of our regular online posters who bring divergent views to the table when commenting on stories — whether it's coverage of Gloucester schools, Fort development, the I-4, C-2 property or the city's budget choices.
They're often joined in those online debates by posters who, to their credit, use their real names — such as former City Councilor Jason Grow, school activists Martin Delvecchio and Peter Dolan, Lanesville commenter Doug Hill and a number of others.
Now, signing one's name to a Times letter to the editor is essential. We do not print anonymous letters to the editor, and there a number of reasons for that — perhaps the biggest being that, one writer could hypothetically send in a number of letters, our printing them would portray that these are actually the views of many readers, not just one, and that would deceive readers and city or town officials alike. There's also a lot to be said for the fact that, when someone is willing to attach his or her name to an opinion or comment, it adds credibility to it as well.
So then, you may ask — and many have — why do we still allow people to comment anonymously when posting to stories online?
There are several reasons for that.
Have we thought about requiring people to post under their real names? Frankly, yes, and that remains an ongoing issue for a number of newspapers and other media outlets.
Yes, readers are well-advised to take anonymous comments, to some extent, with a grain of salt. Yes, some comments — almost always posted anonymously — violate rules that commenters not level personal attacks at others, or post unfounded criminal or other allegations that have not or cannot be documented. And some would-be posters just get carried away. Our site's own filter that blocks posts that include what the late George Carlin once called the "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television" is now up to 61 words and variations — and counting.
Yet, my sense remains that requiring posters to use their real names would drive out a lot of commenters who have important views to contribute.
I suspect that, if we went that route, the vast majority of those commenting would be those who are used to speaking publicly, and taking positions publicly.
Lost would be those who are not comfortable having the community know their names as well as their views, for fear of retribution, or other reasons. And especially lost would be comments from people who might work for the city or for one of our towns and school systems, and who have valuable information to add to the discussion, but would be intimidated about sharing it if others knew their identity.
Some may wonder why we allow any online comments on stories, editorials and letters at all. But I've long thought they add a great deal to our online gloucestertimes.com presentations by allowing readers to react immediately. And, unlike letters to the editor, which must fit onto this page, there's no limit to the number of readers who can join that immediate debate.
Should posters be able to remain anonymous? To me, having a more open forum still carries more pluses than minuses. As always, let me know what you think.
Questions? Comments? Is there a topic you'd like to see addressed in a future column? Contact Times Editor Ray Lamont at 978-283-7000 x3438, or rlamont@gloucestertimes.com.
