What will help make this "on the record" idea function?
For all of us?
This isn't working
(25 posts) (16 voices)
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Yeah, I don't even think "admin" reads the posts anymore. It's starting to raise the philosophical question: if you use your real name and nobody hears you, are you really anonymous?
Before this feature dies completely, I would like to thank Rod Sullivan -- as far as I know, he is the only local elected official to participate in On The Record. (Disclosure: I met him briefly once, though I doubt he knows who I am.) If there were more like him, maybe there would be more conversation here.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think somebody mentioned the possibility of being able to easily click on "On the Record" directly after stories and opinion pieces. It would be placed in the space with the comments. Is that possible?
Posted 2 years ago # -
“?BEING ABLE TO EASILY CLICK ON "ON THE RECORD" DIRECTLY AFTER STORIES AND OPINION PIECES?”
Yes, and if “On the Record” is going to work, it needs to be as readily accessible for use as is the “Outhouse Wall” comment space available to anonymous posters. In fact, if the “Outhouse Wall” was as remotely accessible as “On the Record,” it would soon die.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yeah, I've kind of come to the conclusion that this isn't going to work, too, and I'm skeptical that tweaking website navigational functions, locations or capabilities will make any difference. There really isn't any practical upside to posting under one's real name, and there are of course any number of potential downsides. This is especially true if one wishes to take a an unpopular stance on a controversial issue.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I agree with the general sentiment here. I love the concept, but for it to really work I feel strongly that it somehow must be tied to the stories of the day. There's not much to it other than that.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thank you for the kind words, Chris. I agree with the general sentiments expressed here... links to each article are key. I sincerely hope this survives!
---Rod Sullivan
Posted 2 years ago # -
even though there isn't much traffic on this board, i hope the pc maintains it. i suppose it might be helpful to link "on the record" to various news--or sports--stories as they're published on-line. still, this action won't remove what i see as the most significant impediment to posting under one's own name--the very simple fear of looking stupid.
if i intend to put my name on an opinion, i feel a reasonable obligation to craft the presentation so that it is, at least, passingly clear. in addition, while i have opinions on all sorts of things, i don't always feel that i'm in sufficient command of the facts or issues to justify written public commentary. every once in a while i do feel prepared.
it is possible that "on the record" might evolve into a comfortable, civil chat room tied to digital publications in the pc. that'd be dandy. there is another line of evolution, though. it might become a forum on which folks can present something more than spontaneous responses to events--it might become a sort of blog spot for those of us who don't feel like maintaining a regular blog. we really don't need another outlet for short, clever, or snarky comments. even though we might never ring up big numbers, some of us might value a forum that would accommodate an occasional piece prepared with at least middling care and clarity. use of capital letters might be optional.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Dang it, I just wrote an eloquent (yeah right) comment for the world and it was eaten by the computer in an error when I tried to post it. Undoubtedly user error as I am a newbie with computer generated password sent to me minutes ago...
I hear your frustrations and wanted to let you all know that I like this and am glad for non-anonymous commentary. I stopped reading the PC online commentary because of the vitriol. Have you ever served on a committee or board where there are a few people who feel their ideas merit immediate action...on the part of everyone else?! That's what reading the anonymous commentary is like for me...
So to those of you who have been posting, thanks for holding this thing together. I'll try to get some folks who have also been complaining about the anonymous commentary to register and participate--I think there need to be enough participants to make this take off, yes? Another thought is whether this should just be directly linked to Facebook? Then the posts to your email, the login, the name/identity of person posting is all addressed...maybe not everyone is interested in going that route but I would find it handy and like to upload news stories to my FB page.
Recipes are fun, too. The discussion about trailer parks as alternative housing raised a lot of questions for me and I'm still processing about that...I know there may be very good proprietors here in IC but am still not convinced that's an optimal affordable housing given a number of questions: can you easily get a bank loan? Aren't there a lot of hidden costs if the trailer home has rules about the age of the trailer they will allow on the property and that kind of thing? And what about tornadoes? But I suppose I should post my comments in that discussion thread...
Cheers, everyone! I look forward to interesting discussion and ideas with the possibility that people might (gasp) be able to change their minds about things upon further reflection/information!
Posted 2 years ago # -
When you have an anonymous option next to an option like this, the anonymous wins. This is the internet and whether people actively seek anonymity or not, it is a part of the internet culture.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I too hope On the Record survives. I appreciate the comments and discussions that are posted and attributed as both help me understand some of the issues covered/discussed. I can't help but wonder if the ability to post anonymously encourages outrageous comments - because it's possible and why not. Or does the current economy contributing to people's frustrations and therefore posting repugnant or insulting comments?
Posted 2 years ago # -
When we decided to launch this experiment in named story chat we knew that building momentum could be a long, organic process. I'm very thankful you folks have contributed to this process.
We were also very clear that people who really wanted to invest in a reasonable, open, productive and named discussion were probably busy and unable to spend the entire days poised to comment or each and every thread.
I was talking about this project with a friend of mine (Iowa City native) who is a city attorney up in Minnesota. He's spent much of his career working directly with the general public as a prosecuter, public defender and civil servant. He's dealt with a broad range of people.
Anyway, I was bemoaning the fact that the anonymous story chat continued to have huge momentum, dozens of posts, hard-core regular contributors, etc. and the overall negative, provocative and vitriolic atmosphere hadn't changed a lick. He posited some characteristics (based on his experiences) of the sorts of people who thrive in such an environment:
1. Unemployed, underemployed or in a job that they dislike enough to want to spend significant amounts of time avoiding it by posting on the Internet.
2. Angry and/or bitter about some real or perceived injustice done to them.
3. Conflict junkies. Some are emboldened by fighting anonymously. Others just like fighting and there's plenty to be found in the story chat environment.
4. Insecure about their ability to influence or be taken seriously without the cover of anonymity.
5. They feel powerless over their environment and lash out for relief.
6. Pleased with the perceived power or attention they get from provocative or shocking posts.
I would be interested to see how much you agree or disagree with his assessment.
I've had many anonymous posters write saying they can't use their name for fear of reprisals in the workplace or in their neighborhoods, etc. I'm sure there's truth in that assertion - to a degree. But I simply can't believe the EVERY topic of discussion or EVERY opinion they might have on an issue would be cause for such concern. I think they could contribute to both forums.
Let's be honest, most people would rather watch COPs than a City Council meeting. More excitement, sexier, etc. Less cultural or intellectual value, but not as much effort required. I watch both, but I try to be clear with myself about what I am getting out of each and what my participation as a viewer actually does to improve the world in which I live.
Frankly - though there is not as much "action" on this site as I might like right now, it's much more productive and thoughtful than the alternative.
We are looking at ways to tie this site more closely to press-citizen.com as well as other ways to drive participation. But as I said in my column when we launched this project, its success is reliant on you posting, on you spreading the word, on you raising important (or even just fun) issues.
Please hang with On The Record and help us to build the structure of our community's first "virtual" town meeting.
Thanks
Dan Brown
Dan Brown's opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the Press-Citizen, its editorial board or employees.
Posted 2 years ago # -
it seems to me that much of the vitriol on the pc's anonymous forums rises from very conservative ideologues who take courage from their heroes on talk radio and fox news. self-identification becomes unimportant if one wishes to be identified only by an ideology. such posters seem unshakably confident in their views and so their underlying sense of social righteousness serves to justify abandoning the conventions of civil discussion--let alone the obligations of logic. they have a mission, not an appetite for discussion.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's an interesting perspective Bruce. And one that is amply supported by the ideologic modeling provided by some very well-paid radical conservatives. Heck, I hold some very conservative beliefs. I consider myself a conservative in some respects. I vote Republican in some races. My dad is an avowed conservative. To be conservative does not necessarily require a lack of reason or civility. I know some very reasonable conservatives. Unfortunately their opinions aren't provocative enough to command $38,000,000 per year on the radio or a coveted position on the lecture circuit.
Dan Brown's opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the Press-Citizen, its editorial board or employees.
Posted 2 years ago # -
An issue for me with offering comments in a public forum has to do with what I understand to be acknowledging personal responsibility for the consequences to others of what I may have to say. At a public panel discussion held yesterday to discuss incivility in the public realm one of the panel members said strongly and plainly that public utterances that attack and demean very often have a very real effect on how targeted persons perceive themselves. It seems quite fair to presume that words that harm are most often uttered with the intent to harm. I see no reason why people who speak in a newspaper comment forum primarily to cause ill in the lives of others should expect to be shielded from neighborhood shame or workplace standards. Nor do I see why a newspaper would deliberately provide a barricade that very much favors the worst actors in society. Momentum should not be a standard of journalistic excellence or community relevance.
This identified forum has been even more helpful to me then I first expected. While writing a comment is certainly hard to do, reading the comments of others has without exception been worthwhile (even the recipe excursion). In particular I was prodded into more carefully considering the role of manufactured housing as affordable housing by the comments of others on that topic. I also hope the paper will continue to develop this useful platform.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think it misses the mark to characterize confrontational or provocative anonymous comments as either 1) mean spirited for the sake of it, or 2) typical of any particular ideological group. People are angry, and justifiably so. The so-called tea-baggers in my view constitute the only currently active "mainstream" protest movement that has an anger commensurate with the atrocities currently being committed by money and power in America. Unfortunately, they are geopolitically clueless, taking their cues from Faux News demagogues, and thus their anger is misdirected.
But fascism seems to be alive and well everywhere. On the Right, it unveils as American exceptionalism, jingoism, militarism, thinly veiled racism, and uses the rhetoric of "free markets" to justify corporate, oligarchic tyranny. On the Left, it manifests as a neo-Wilsonian progressive revelry of self-appointed, self-righteous elitist social engineers who want nothing less than to sanitize their world from any and all behaviors they happen to dislike. It's a movement of coerced, false gentility and polite Orwellian double-speak in which, for example, banning smoking from the ped mall is termed "empowering", bemused and apathetic silence is hailed as "consensus", and banal material lifestyle conformity is labeled the "celebration of diversity."
But oppression is still oppression, however you choose to interpret or define it, and people can only take so much "zero tolerance" for this or that until we become "zero tolerant" of our oppressor. The Empire has probably accumulated enough bad karma (after all, you can only fight so many dirty wars, at home and abroad, until the proverbial chicken comes home to roost) that there's nothing to be done about it. The historical cycle is just going to have to play itself out. But in the meantime, as long as some semblance of 1st Amendment rights remain, people are going to vent.
Civility for its own sake is probably overrated anyway, insofar as it only fosters the delusion that we're in inhabiting anything other than the death throes of an extremely sick, corrupt civilization, college town fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.
Posted 2 years ago # -
These discussions of why people are more likely to post anonymously than under their real name seem premature. Right now the P-C site is engineered to funnel people toward anonymous commenting and to make it much less likely that anyone would choose (or even think) to read or post in On The Record. Until the two methods of commenting are put on an equal footing, there's no telling how popular or unpopular real-name commenting might be.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mr. Conroy's post mentioned the First Amendment. I think many PC posters misunderstand the First Amendment. (I do not mean to imply Mr. Conroy is one of those people!)
The First Amendment protects our speech from government interference. It DOES NOT apply to a private business like the PC.
The PC can print (or not print) anything it chooses (within a few limits). I have always felt that newspapers (including online editions) have a tremendous responsibility to the public. In my mind, that means helping to improve the level of discourse in a community rather than ensuring that the worst possible sentiments get top billing.
I think it would be better if the PC reviewed comments prior to them being posted. Sure, it would slow things down. But some of the mean-spirited things that happen here - such as attacks on the recently deceased - have no place in civil society.
Rod Sullivan
Posted 2 years ago # -
Three cheers for Michael Conroy's post. Michael doesn't sound like anyone I have met in the nearly ten years that I have been in Iowa City. I agree with most of what he said.
In Michael's case and with other OTR members who I don't know, I often wish the member profile pages would tell a little about the member besides the links to what they have written in OTR.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think it may be too early to decide if this forum is working. One piece of information that is needed to evaluate the
forum is how many people read it and if that number is growing or decreasing. Another issue is the duration of a post my preference would be a week with a maximum of two weeks for the initial post on a thread. If the PC can afford tto monitor the forum they should zap off-topic posts as soon as they appear.Posted 2 years ago # -
Michael,
I like your way of thinking and believe you've correctly diagnosed our cultural pathology. Where is our diseased age's Christopher Lasch when we need him or her?
I also like your pointing out the equivalent authoritarianism of so many on the Left or the Right today. In my opinion, the true believers of each side deserve each other.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't know whether Michael meant that the authoritarianism of the left is "equivalent" to that of the right, but if he did, I have to disagree. Yeah, the left goes too far in trying to police things like smoking, and both the left and right are guilty of trying to enforce a kind of party line among like-minded people. But that stuff is small potatoes compared to the authoritarianism coming from the right wing over the last ten years. As between bans on smoking, on the one hand, and warrantless indefinite detention and confessions extracted by torture on the other, give me the smoking ban.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Chris,
Of course. Forced to choose, I too prefer the smoking ban. But why the false dichotomy? This is what disgusts me about the condition of politics today, namely, the kind of tribalism that rationalizes away one's own sins on the basis the enemy's are so much worse. (Please note I am not implicating you of same when making this comment.)In short, I believe the demand for ideological purity is as pernicious a problem for the Left as for the Right. I say this as somebody who would spectacularly flunk any such test and thus am unwelcome in either party. Quoting Václav Havel: "Ideology offers human beings the illusion of dignity and morals while making it easier to part with them."
Posted 2 years ago # -
I mostly agree with you. "A pox on both houses" arguments are often justifiable, but they can simultaneously operate to obscure the fact that there are real differences between the houses. Just as an example, I watched this week as Republican Congressman Eric Cantor, in response to the accusation that his party's rhetoric was fomenting violence, pointed out that someone had recently fired a bullet into his own office building. In fact, it turned out that someone had randomly fired a bullet into the air, which, on its descent, had hit a window on the first floor of a building in which his office was on the top floor. But right on cue, the media started talking about how there will always be crazies on both sides of every issue -- and the question of anyone's responsibility faded away.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Point well taken. Although I have a low opinion of the Democratic party, I esteem the Republican party lower still. This fact does not, however, compel me to just hold my nose and hitch my wagon to Democratic style liberalism. As you intimate, it is quite difficult to maintain this position without becoming cynical or disengaging from politics altogether.
More generally, I agree it is a profound failure of the modern media that they promulgate, by their pattern of coverage, the insidious notion that every issue has two sides which deserve equal time and hearing. One cannot blame the media alone, or even chiefly, inasmuch as most news consumers--and how sad that "consumer" is the apt noun in the age of infotainment--want their views only validated, not challenged or subjected to independent truth tests. This arguably is yet another symptom that we are no longer a serious people, but rather a nation inexorably in decline (viz. Mr. Conroy's post above).
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.