The New York Times, the New York Post, the Wall St Journal, Newsday, and nearly every print media refuses to publish Letters to the Editors unless they can identify and confirm the identity of the writer. This is done for many reasons, but a few seem applicable to the Patch, as well.
1. Anonymous posters often feel free to make claims, disparaging comments, accusations, etc., to a far larger extent than they would if their identities were disclosed.
2. Often, two or more anonymous posters go back and forth, accusing each other, calling each other names, etc.
3. There is far too much unrelated comment made attached to articles or Blogs. While I fully believe that anyone and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to express it openly, when someone posts under an alias or assumed name, it reminds me of the Old West, when mobs just strung someone up and hung them, often under disguise of masks or other devices.
4. Is there a way to control the polarizing tone of some of these posts? One can fully express his opinion without resorting to name calling.
5. Shouldn't anyone who feels strongly enough to take the time and effort to post a comment, have the courage of his convictions, and publicly take a stand?
I urge the Patch to adopt certain standards and seriously consider banning posts by anonymous posters. You wouldn't write an article without checking the sources, would you?
We must begin to return to civility and conversation instead of this bickering and polarization.
Thank You!
What do you think, Bob?
I like my privacy, I feel like the invisible man, let me be. I also think Bob is a great guy who got a very raw deal.
I am all for anonymity. How are you to know my true identity anyway? I could post a full first and last name - maybe I just picked one from the phone book - what will you ask next - for my ss #? In this day and age you need to protect yourself from many situations and many people. Sorry, Charlie - but it only takes one whacko to hurt me or my family. What I am tired of are the incessant stupid posts that are so inflammatory and childish. If you really need to kill the day, then go find a website dedicated to games. Don't play any here.
Anonymity is not a bad thing. What the root of the problem is with these 'anonymous' postings isn't the anonymity, but the stupidity.
Anonymity is fine as long as we recognize that in anonymity one's words have to be heavily discounted as they may well come from a political operative or even a commercial concern wishing to sway public opinion. It WAS a problem with the broadsheets and relatively few of the more egregious broadsheets survived. The NY and Philadelphia papers knew who the Federalists and their antagonists were so the anonymity was somewhat specious.
I think we're ALL glad you are expressing your opinions. I KNOW we're ALL glad you vote as that is essential and appropriately anonymous. The difference here is that people post, generally, to sway opinion and convince others of the soundness of their ideas. The reason that big-name pundits and bloggers and journalists get listened to is because people know their work and therefore their biases and their institutional associations. Anonymous speech is fine but heavily discounted without some context (who it comes from, who they might represent, etc.).
"Listened to"? LOL! Most with known biases and affiliations are immediately discounted except by their own acolytes. They'd be better off commenting anonymously. Argument stands on its own; draw your conclusions based on the words, not the identity of the debater.
I for one am not above telling you who I am. I am Jonathan W. from Port Washington I have my opinions as does others but i do not unjustifiably bash someone unless they are just posting to start trouble. That is not the good natured purpose of this type of forum. Some people need to take their soap box some where else where they may have a more captivating audience
Nothing