Overall I think Steve Scaffidi does an admirable job on his morning talk show on WTMJ. I will say his program is far too guest heavy. Guests all the time, the same guests over and over and over again.
It’s a talk show, but the phone lines don’t get opened all that often for listeners to call in and…talk.
One of his regular guests is James Wigderson, editor of Right Wisconsin. Wigderson demonstrates that in general, print people have a not so easy time adjusting to broadcast. He did, though, mention something that caught my ear during Monday’s program: Regarding social media, it’s time to get rid of the anonymous contributors.
I’ve been blogging about the issue for a long time. Here’s an edited, but still timely blog of mine from September 1, 2009:
Some background on a recent court battle that should be of great interest to bloggers.
began writing a blog in August 2008 about…
That’s model Liskula Cohen.
wrote a blog called, “Skanks in NYC.” The sole purpose of the anonymous blog was to trash Cohen with unflattering pictures and a litany of name-calling, including, “a psychotic, lying, whoring . . . skank.”
and Google, the host of the anonymously written blog. Cohen sought to learn the identity of the individual sliming her.
A Manhattan judge ruled in Cohen’s favor, and the trash-talking blogger was unmasked as…..
29-year old Michelle Port.
Port claimed she went after Cohen because Cohen said nasty things about Port to her boyfriend.
There’s more to the story that you can read here.
A larger issue is at play: the danger of anonymity on the Internet.
Not everyone who writes or comments anonymously on blogs or chat sites is irresponsible. However, given the opportunity to hide behind a fake name, a writer feels the incentive to engage in outrageous, negative, hostile, even false or libelous commentary. As columnist Dennis Prager once wrote:
“It is the very rare individual who sends a hate-filled, obscenity-laced e-mail that includes his name. As the recipient of such e-mails, I know firsthand how rarely people identify themselves when sending hate-filled mail. It is so rare, in fact, that I usually respond to hate mail that includes the writer’s name just to commend him for attaching his name to something so embarrassing.
The Internet practice of giving everyone the ability to express himself anonymously for millions to read has debased public discourse. Cursing, ad hominem attacks and/or the utter absence of logic characterize a large percentage of many websites’ ‘comments’ sections. And because people tend to do what society says it is OK to do, many people, especially younger people, are coming to view such primitive forms of self-expression as acceptable.
Some might argue that anonymity enables people to more freely express their thoughts. But this is not true. Anonymity only enables people to more freely express their feelings. Anonymity values feelings over thought, and immediate expression over thoughtful reflection.”
I call these people cowards. Ironically, liberal columnist Maureen Dowd used the same term in writing about the Cohen/Port case.
Reckless blogging is like a cancer, permeating the Internet. Sometimes, in the never-ending quest to make waves, the blogger can go too far.
There are bloggers who, like Michelle Port, have no intention of providing important information or discourse. Their sole purpose is to smear. Knowing they couldn’t face their targets or engage them in meaningful debate, fearing the very thought, they cowardly hide behind phony names or titles.
In a perfect world, everyone who writes a blog would have to divulge his/her identity and affiliation. Ditto for people who “comment.” Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen, and the irresponsibility will continue.