Southern Illinois' Daily Egyptian ices reader comments

[ServeItUp]

Of all the papers to pull the plug, a college daily?

http://www.siude.com/voices/that-s-enough-1.1728766

 

[RickStain]

Of all the papers to pull the plug, a college daily?

http://www.siude.com/voices/that-s-enough-1.1728766

They must have finally gotten tired of the Mohammed cartoon debate that was still ongoing on their site.

 

[forever_town]

Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them.

 

[SF_Express]

As I've said million times, for most of us in this business, reader comment and interaction aren't going anywhere. "This is the business we've chosen." And that's the way it is today -- you're going to be seeing a lot more of this, not less.

That said, I liked her column in most ways. Not that the offenders will care.

 

[RickStain]

Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them.

You made free speech cry.

 

[Moderator1]

Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them.

You made free speech cry.

How?
You are still free to say what you want to say. You just have to put a name to it.

 

[Bullwinkle]

Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them.

Goodbye, message boards?

 

[RickStain]

Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them.

You made free speech cry.

How?
You are still free to say what you want to say. You just have to put a name to it.

Allow me to let the Supreme Court speak for me:

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 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 . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
(quote courtesy Electronic Frontiers Foundation).

The history of anonymous speech is deep and important. Throwing it out because of a few jerky commenters would be a catastrophic mistake.

 

[J-School Blue]

I agree anonymous speech has its place, but I think it's a bit far-reaching to imply newspapers axing reader comments is somehow an attack on it (and, personally, I don't think a newspaper is the proper forum for anonymous speech). It's every paper's choice as to whether or not they want to make their Web sites a forum for feces-slinging howler monkeys (for the record, I think properly moderated reader comments could be valuable discussion tools, but papers are trying to do this crap on the cheap and aren't putting the time in to do them properly, so feces-slinging is what they inevitably turn into).

I smiled as I read that editorial. I smiled a lot.

 

[RickStain]

I agree anonymous speech has its place, but I think it's a bit far-reaching to imply newspapers axing reader comments is somehow an attack on it (and, personally, I don't think a newspaper is the proper forum for anonymous speech). It's every paper's choice as to whether or not they want to make their Web sites a forum for feces-slinging howler monkeys (for the record, I think properly moderated reader comments could be valuable discussion tools, but papers are trying to do this crap on the cheap and aren't putting the time in to do them properly, so feces-slinging is what they inevitably turn into).

I smiled as I read that editorial. I smiled a lot.

Absolutely. It's of course within a paper's rights to not allow comments, and I think they'd be better off doing it.

I was simply responding to "Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them."

 

[The Ghost of Red Smith]

This old Saluki liked the column.

That said, I think the simple solution is to moderate the comments.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Unless you're willing to sign your real name to comments, you should not be allowed to make them.

Forever Town is your real name?

 

[mustangj17]

This is completely understandable. People are stupid.

 

[Andy _ Kent]

Couldn't help but laugh a little at this tagline at the end of her column:

Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!

Log in Log in to be able to post comments.

 

[mediaguy]

If you kill the comments, your traffic numbers will take a big hit as well.

Think of it as a sports bar where only the owner gets to talk. You probably go get a beer somewhere else where the conversation is better ...

 

[Fredrick]

You made free speech cry.

Bull****. Free speech is about making an opinion and having the balls to sign your name and address to it.
Anonymous internet comments and message boards are two of the reasons society has gone to hell. Newspapers that allow reader comments are whores.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

If you kill the comments, your traffic numbers will take a big hit as well.

Think of it as a sports bar where only the owner gets to talk. You probably go get a beer somewhere else where the conversation is better ...

This week's stop on the Bad Analogies Tour has a new leader in the clubhouse, I think.

 

[J-School Blue]

If papers started posting pornography on their front pages, I'm sure traffic would go WAY up.

Does that mean newspapers should be a forum for pornography?

(Also a bad analogy, admittedly.)

 

[zebracoy]

I will say, though, that the tangent on the individuals who have died who worked at the newspaper and their families was a bit of a reach.

 

[jps]

If you kill the comments, your traffic numbers will take a big hit as well.

Think of it as a sports bar where only the owner gets to talk. You probably go get a beer somewhere else where the conversation is better ...

This week's stop on the Bad Analogies Tour has a new leader in the clubhouse, I think.

mmmhmm.