MonroeTalks mirrors issues nationwide
Two unrelated moments today got me thinking again about MonroeTalks.com.
First, a student stopped me as I walked across campus to ask if I had seen the latest flare-up on MonroeTalks involving Sojourner, a regular poster who revels in controversy.
Then on my semi-regular visit to Poynter Online, a sort of journalism think tank, I ran across a blog post by media analyst Rick Edmonds about Topix.com.
Topix aggregates news - that is, it collects news stories from a variety of sources and packages them for each community in the country.
Check under Monroe and you’ll find a bizarre collection of news, most from Detroit or Toledo Web sites.
None of the news stories are original and there is no effort to be comprehensive. So you end up with an interesting but hardly useful mish-mash of news.
More of Topix’ Web traffic seems to come from the “Talk” section, where site users can comment on anything they choose.
As with MonroeTalks.com, the conversation is varied and sometimes not very civil. Because Topix is owned by respectable newspaper companies - Gannett, Tribune and McClatchy - Edmonds questioned whether the level of uncivility is appropriate.
He noted that newspapers have been struggling since the advent of user comments to find the balance between unfettered, open dialogue and maintaining tight enough control to satisfy their traditional high ethical standards
Most readers of this blog probably know that until eight weeks ago I led the team of folks at The Evening News who moderate MonroeTalks.
We spent many hours discussing this very topic. But invariably we decided to err on the side of letting people have their say with as little intervention by the newspaper as possible.
That philosophy was described by Topix creator Chris Tolles as a “culture shift,” according to Edmonds.
That’s exactly what it is.
I don’t pretend to understand why the Internet is the way it is. But users of Web sites like Topix and MonroeTalks are looking for a place to express themselves - without big brother looking over their shoulders.
It was fun checking out MonroeTalks again. I’m still amazed by the depth and diversity of the comments. And yes, some are still lacking in civility.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Interesting!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Dan,
I think there are A LOT of people who revel in controversy on that site.
Somehow, we (as a collective) have forgotten that nice matters.
While I’m not a HUGE fan of Dancing With The Stars, I thought this comment by one of the judges was spot on.
“That’s the one part of the Internet that I find at times to be very unsettling. It encourages this sort of cowardly unkindness.” (Carrie Ann Inaba was talking about one of the dancers being called “fat” in blog comments.)
Dan, do you think this is true? Some people think its cool to be mean and nasty while hiding behind the anonymity of their screen name.
You’re not anonymous. You’re Dan Shaw. You don’t take cheap shots or make the site your own personal insider joke site because YOU have to live with what you write/post as being yours.
I sincerely believe that if MT was full of “real people” and not screen names, it would be a lot more civil. Because it would be your neighbor or your sister’s co-worker or the dude from the carwash who you were trash talking, and (thankfully) people don’t act like that in real life.
Anonymity… the blessing and the curse of the internet.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Hey Dan,
You said:
1.) “First, a student stopped me as I walked across campus to ask if I had seen the latest flare-up on MonroeTalks involving Sojourner, a regular poster who revels in controversy.”
2.) “I don’t pretend to understand why the Internet is the way it is. But users of Web sites like Topix and MonroeTalks are looking for a place to express themselves - without big brother looking over their shoulders.”
Now that I can post here on the blog, I will address these two points.
1.) Wouldn’t you agree that if people wouldn’t have violated the rules in the TOS, which prohibits sexual lewdness, harassment, etc., that there would have been no need of such heated debates over decency on this family forum? Sure, I was active in the controversy (open debates), as were many, but was my argument invalid in light of the rules of decency?
Did I really seek to silence people or did I seek to silence indecency on a family forum?
2.) Sure, people should have a place to express themselves, provided they keep their end of the agreement, which they made when signing up to this site. Wouldn’t you agree?
If people would have truly kept their end of the agreement in mind and used self-moderation, then there would have been no need for a big brother to say, “Come on, let’s keep this place halfway clean, as our thirteen year old sister is allowed to post here. I don’t want her seeing lewd pictures and the like.” Wouldn’t you agree?
I see what you were after in self-moderation, but it can’t work, just as the editor in Houston told you, “That would never work here, as people are just too mean.” I also understand *you wished to please everyone*, but when it comes to problems, you have to move in favor of those who are not violating the rules.
As you see, there is a new moderator, and he’s doing a good job in keeping this place clean, just as decent people expect it to be in light of the agreement they made when becoming a member. As with nearly every forum, there has to be a moderator, because let’s be real people are just too mean.
The so-called Crusade of decency is over and decency won, as it justly had to, and people are still as free as they ever were to post what they wish, provided it doesn’t violate the rules of this family forum. Wouldn’t you agree?
You’ll find the controversy, as you call it, dying down in time, as we now find better enforcement of the rules, and that clear violations are no longer justified with saying *Too subjective to determine* as you used to say.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I’ve never understood why people would choose to get on-line and argue. Maybe they aren’t winning any arguments in real life and use the forums to sharpen their skills?
October 20th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Good points, Em and Sojourner.
Sojourner: As in our earlier online conversations, our difference of opinion remains the same. It’s not easy - probably is impossible - to get widespread agreement in a diverse culture like ours over what is appropriate content for a community discussion forum.
I disagree with you - I think the controversy will always be there. It’s the nature of the beast. But I continue to be amazed at how many people, from wide-ranging backgrounds, co-exist on MonroeTalks with only a minimal amount of difficulty.
Em: I agree with your basic premise - that MonroeTalks would be much more civil if posters were required to use their real names.
But I thought when we launched MonroeTalks, and I still think, that requiring names would have dramatically limited use of the site. Most people who use Internet talk forums want anonymity. If they didn’t get it on MonroeTalks, they would just go somewhere else.
The goal was to be the place where Monroe talked. I don’t think that goal would have been possible without anonymity.
Having said that, this is a constantly changing world. What worked in 2007 may not work in 2009. I hope the MEN will constantly look for ways to improve MonroeTalks, and possible to offer other new alternatives.
Maybe in niche areas, such as parenting, a different model would be better.
Dan