Op Ed: Insightful Comments Reflecting Growing Citizen Involvement

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Our Founders did not place the content of that famed First Amendment where it leads our Constitution without probing/exploring dialog and fully-detailed, determined cogitation reflecting fact and philosophy.

The Federalist Papers make that exceedingly clear in both precise comment and continuing general detail. Now, opening our 21st Century, easy-access and ubiquitous channel-usage for more millions than ever before has arrived via the Internet.

Never before have millions been offered such an open ticket to share-and-learn about sensitive, often painful, always complex problems/issues/policies and potential action by government and ourselves.

One thoroughly foreseeable consequence is that we now find ourselves “blessed” (!?!) with far too-facile, easier, more rapid --and too often less thoughtful-- citizen/response than even the Founders might find it possible to appreciate. That’s inevitable when millions share “meaningful communications” (!??!) at so many levels, in so many ways, about multiple and still-multiplying common interests. As with every new-and-intriguing toy, widespread reaction --especially by “many ostensibly mature adults too thoroughly feelings-fed rather than cogitatively triggered”-- has been fantastic in many more ways than might first appear.

“Top-of-head”, often too-rapid response to any of many provocative newsletters or proliferating blogs content presentations has become one of the most threatening current “dark/cloud conditions” hovering over our still-precious First Amendment-protected freedoms.

But no comment-participant should ever forget the public forum, worldwide in delivery, to which every comment-made inevitably --and instantaneously- is delivered. For responsibles that presents no difficulty except due care surely and most obviously demanded. YOU are responsible, fully accountable for all you write and publish on these intriguing channels.

If you cannot feel comfortable signing your stuff openly and without equivocation via anonymity or pseudo-name, better NOT fire it off. Additionally, it has become painfully obvious that many maligh-intended “special interests” have already fully invaded this very vulnerable and wide-open public channel-set. (We’ve captured and silenced a few right here on S-N.)

The unprecedented proliferation of Internet-based channels provides simple and rapid access-routes right into the hearts of millions of American homes --with more becoming vulnerable each and every day.

Easy anonymity and pseudo-name signature on any comment can provide all-too-easy means to avoid the essential responsibility and accountability we have the right to demand from every communicator. In fact, given the essential ease for hiding motive and managing manipulation now via Internet contact, that essential and very socially-responsible component for every communication is more truly-demanded than ever before.

The first and paramount rule for evaluating every communication is very simple: KNOW THE SOURCE !! Any responsible source will present full ID and details re any communication, on polite request.

It is well-established professional communications principle that if such information is NOT rapidly supplied, there MUST be a reason for continued covert concealment of too-revealing information destroying desired effect and impact originally sought.

Millions respond daily to the essential American open channel of “Letters to the Editor”, long offered by the American press as the simplest and most effective sharing/learning channel providable to wide participation from every reader.

But access to that famed and world-appreciated American device has almost always been with demand for full identification of the letter-writer --simple legal protection for both publisher and other readers. By now it has become very painfully obvious that there are some ostensible free-speech advocates who are willing to make wild, radical, unfounded and entirely undocumented statements.

Most often they do so simply to satisfy their own peculiar psychological pleasures in perturbing others -- while enjoying the apparent safety of anonymity or pseudo-name/ID for their comments. One sure tip-off is their often-advanced claim of “fear of retaliation” -- surely back-handed admission of something fearfully wrong with what they offer.

There are still others --some paid by many private dollar-gain special interests-- to carry on similar hidden-attack by the same means, for the peculiar advantages which may proceed from such action., Most will contend they are “only intensely interested” in their own particular topic. But that chimera is completely evaporated by their tone-and-content of comment, pursued persistently to the point of distraction, as well as detraction of other participants.

They either do not realize --or “do not care a tinker’s damn!”-- about overall damage to reader interest, to wasted attention and to the integrity of both the comment process and the channel directly affected. They seem oblivious to the ease with which their comments can be traced and their location and full identification obtained. That comparatively new process, in place already on many such channels, is just now beginning to be applied.

Its use is demanded by the growing urgent insistence of many others, not only annoyed but deeply frustrated and angered by those who will so act, while knowing they are indelibly damaging this now-essential and necessarily shared human communications resource. Its newly-recognized special importance for citizen civic responsibility participation and full understanding of issues, problems and demanded action means nothing to those who will --as they have for years-- abuse the privilege of free speech for base political and social pandering. (Easily identifiable by content and feeling/tone, as well as intensity and repetition, while often ignoring attention to subject or issue.)

Under due study and preparation for some time now by appropriate governmental agencies, the application process is deemed necessary for solid protection against possible terrorist attack via internet channels. The same techniques can be applied by channel operators seeking more sensitive and appropriate usage of expensive technology they definitely do not want to see abused and abandoned by both readers and the advertisers who pay the relatively large costs involved. That’s far too costly not only in dollars now, but in entrepreneurism built on rapid further developments already on the way. With that development now ready and known to many channel operators, you can expect the simple, easy next-step to obviate the need for widespread application, at some cost in dollars and staff effort.

That is, of course, the tried/true and totally UNthreatening resort to simple “one/time first/shot signup’ --something some channels managed by more foresighted operators have already put into place.

Precisely as for Letters to the Editor and similar free-speech applications in “old-fashioned” print, the new-fashioned internet --gleefully noted by some irresponsible for its non-managed if not totally unmanageable nature-- is now facing the same natural dilemma as did print when letter-writing first became a multi-million-user channel early on --and a problem for wise editors and managers of that time.

Given good faith usage of either “the Letters page” in print and the comment-space via Internet/channel, there is no practical defense for refusing to identify yourself when seeking the privilege accorded every user by those paying the technical and management costs for that channel. You are a welcomed guest --and thus expected to assume the same social/cultural/ethical behavior as anyone else in the same relation to a host whose home one is visiting.

Were you NOT brought up that way ??!! That simple fact-of-life is demonstrated by even the most rule-free channels, now sure to require at least a minimum of control over personal comment behavior --see for yourself in the most-used open channels on the entire internet. (OR check the latest reports and books; see Reader’s Note.)

Fortunately, many thousands of the most prolific constant-commenters on the many thousands of open channels we now find available are already becoming well aware of long-used, simple socially-acceptable usage patterns. Those are at very slight cost for their continuing and multiplying usage of those channels.

They are already, by their own sensitivity and demonstrated good will for others, making sure that they operate precisely as in any ordinary conversation with others, conducted face-to-face --and surely, as in that so-often-encountered situation, clearly including easy and open honest ID.

It has become a telling and revealing point on many channels now to discount, deny and delay, in any way possible, whatever is offered by those who insist on operating as unknown-and-unidentifiable -- on the solid social sense of knowing to whom one talks and listens.

Would you welcome warmly into your home a masked man (or woman) who then refuses to remove that mask and provide the practical propriety of personal identification, per proper behavior in any civilized society? Owner/managers must consider their sites in precisely that same way. “The times they are 'a changing" is a solid old truism extremely hard to deny in this opening era of the 21st Century.

Acceptable behavior on the burgeoning Internet is now changing, unmistakably and by insistent, rising demand among its most creative, thus provocative and intriguing participants.

Surely we and our internet channels have by now reached the point when we can demand abandonment of the childish, deliberate and extremely damaging roleplaying/ psychological/social games which have for too long plagued this greatly valuable tool for thoughtful citizen participation.

Many thousands of users have come to realize that trustworthy civil interchange must depend on knowing both the source and the revealing sense of those with whom we exchange our most essential currency -- our thoughts, values, beliefs and decisions.

To allow such free exchange untrammeled and unprotected is to make ourselves far too vulnerable in this day and age, starting a new century where both rational/reasonable dialog and skillfully persuasive, sometimes malign, manipulation clearly contend for personal and public attention.

To share and learn, we must communicate. We can truly, openly, honestly and effectively do so only when we know and trust the others with whom we thus relate in the complexities of modern life. Think, and think again, before you unleash any too-unfettered comment in internet-public channels reaching inexorably across the entire world.

If you cannot sign an honest identifying name, open to further full detail supporting your comment, re-think what you were about to commit for the whole world to see, NOW or LATER, inevitably on the open public record.

Reader’s Note: Far too many references and relevant experiences over fifty working years as writer/consultant in both communications and education are deeply involved here for easy listing.

One major current reference used is: (lower-case on book jacket) “say everything”: How blogging began, What it’s becoming, and Why it matters”. Scott Rosenberg; Crown, 2009. ISBN: 978-0-307-45136-1 Quotes are excerpted, combined and consolidated; verbatim form and sources on request.

At 21, Henry Clay Ruark was Aroostook Editor for the Bangor, Maine DAILY NEWS, covering the upper 1/4 of the state. In the ‘40s, he was Staff Correspondent, then New England Wires Editor at United Press-Boston; later Editor for the Burlington, Vermont 3-daily group owned by Wm. Loeb, later notorious at Manchester, New Hampshire UNION LEADER for attacks on Democratic Presidential candidates.

Hank returned to Oregon to complete M. Ed. degree at OSU, went on to Indiana University for Ed.D. (abd) and special other course-work; was selected as first Information Director for NAVA in Washington, D.C.; helped write sections of NDEA, first Act to supply math, science, foreign language consultants to state depts. of education; joined Oregon Dept. of Education, where he served as NDEA administrator/Learning Media Consultant for ten years.

He joined Dr. Amo DeBernardis at PCC, helping establish, extend programs, facilities, Oregon/national public relations; moved to Chicago as Editor/Publisher of oldest educational-AV journal, reformed as AV GUIDE Magazine; then established and operated Learning Media Associates as general communications consultant group. Due to wife’s illness, he returned to Oregon in 1981, semi-retired, and has continued writing intermittently ever since, joining S-N in 2004. His Op Eds now total over 560 written since then.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jason December 24, 2009 9:40 am (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark in response to your info about the value of unions (and by extension individual privacy) you have not addressed the negative, and please see the last sentence below for it is the present union groupthink philosophy: "Count all the votes!” Democrats screamed during the 2000 Florida recount fiasco. “Don’t count the votes!” Democrats now yell when workers decide whether to unionize." Regarding past union thuggery, I'll just provide some recent examples okay, or just google "union thuggery" to see the truth. In Philadelphia last August, federal Judge Stewart Dalzell ruled that the UNITE textile union “violated Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by recording license plate numbers in employee parking lot and using them to obtain employees’ addresses from motor vehicle records.” Dalzell determined that UNITE agents employed Westlaw’s legal database to link license plates to home addresses. UNITE used “private investigators or information brokers,” Dalzell indicated. Also, “Some organizers followed workers home to get addresses.” “Some employees have had five or more harassing visits from these [United Auto Worker] organizers,” Mike Ivey, a Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation materials handler, explained. “The only way, it seems, to stop the badgering and pressure is to sign the card…We employees feel that the UAW is holding our heads under water until we drown.” After sick leave, “I found that when I returned to work, the [hotel employees] union representatives knew all about my hospitalization and my illness,” Faith Jetter of Pittsburgh’s Renaissance Hotel recalled in a November 2003 federal court affidavit. “I found this to be an invasion of my personal privacy.” Edith White, a New Jersey college food-service staffer, remembered that a Service Workers United organizer named Scott visited her home in August 2005. According to White’s National Labor Relations Board affidavit, Scott told her “I wouldn’t have a job in Sept. if I didn’t sign the card and that the Union would make sure that I was fired. At the end of the conversation, I told him to leave or I would call the police.” In a 1996 decision, the NLRB held that a Service Employees International Union “card solicitor allegedly stated that the employee had better sign a card because if she did not, the Union would come and get her children and it would also slash her car tires.” “In 2004, approximately 83 percent of newly organized workers were herded into unions without secret ballots,” says the National Right to Work Foundation’s Stefan Gleason. “Card-checks offer workers two basic choices: ‘Union, yes’ and ‘Union, yes.’” This union thuggery unfolds behind a curtain of hypocrisy. “We are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections,” 16 House Democrats pleaded in an August 2001 letter to union officials. They added, “The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union that they might not otherwise choose.” Of this letter’s 11 signers still in Congress, including EFCA sponsor George Miller (D - California), all voted to deny American workers secret ballots. As the Senate considers this anti-democratic legislation, Democrats will fight for union bosses like UNITE’s Bruce Raynor. He perfectly expresses Big Labor’s position on jobsite democracy: “There’s no reason to subject the workers to an election.”

Hank Ruark December 23, 2009 9:06 am (Pacific time)

Jason: You wrote:"You either want to join or not, and union thuggery is no false rumor as criminal history of their past clearly shows." That is pernicious myth,part of massive manipulation still ongoing by organized corporate cabal via "association" and "thinktank" channels. SO re-read your American history (any standard text), for correction of erroneous smear vs union concept and longterm massive actions on their part, shaping American life while providing reliable workforce for our progressive advances ever since Hamilton. So happens bloody-side and imperious, arrogant denial of right to unionize is deeply on the record as corporate tactic ever since early days. To oppose the concept of unionization is to defy, deny and defeat long struggle by many workers to offset the inbuilt advantages given to all business vs any one individual, by societal and legislative neglect over many decades of skillful active manipulation by well-funded private interests. Corruption, perversion and distortion lie much more heavily on corporate side in solid history of this nation than does union despoilation by leaders or by members sometimes misguided by same. Where it is intermittently found --as in any other human enterprise-- most effective correction is by further and stronger application of the democratic principles involved in the concept itself --not by overwhelming one-sided confrontation of a single unassisted worker with huge muscle of corporate funding. IF you wish deeper dialog, ID self to Editor with working phone, for exchange of actual documenting references long ago compiled for LMA client. Small fee: $25. (Original work billed at $2,500.)

Hank Ruark December 23, 2009 7:19 am (Pacific time)

Apologies for typo in article title; should be: "Changing The Tone". Few observing national news and political channels will disagree with this article. Those who do may need to examine own motives for that stance, including personal understandings of own psychological makeup. See long dialog here re the Wills classic book for guidance.

Hank Ruark December 22, 2009 6:31 pm (Pacific time)

For national application of this whole theme, reflected from many channels besides and beyond S-N and Internet, see "Caging the Tone" by Mark Schmitt, Exec/Editor of The American Prospect, p.9, Dec.09 issue. Telling quote: "Most citizens want to be heard, but we can't let angry minority speak for them." To me, with years observing, sample and analysis, that is precisely what's happening in S-N ! "See with own eyes" and also check other national sources for this same potent malign attitude and set of actions, by open channels nationally, now clearly reported as in process. Does this reflect paid-work by some, for political purpose of obvious kind ? If you observe channels as I must, for ongoing pro-writer responsibilities,you can see for yourself and make your own analysis.

Hank Ruark December 22, 2009 3:53 pm (Pacific time)

Just read OR-and-Tim comment re possible civil OR even criminal action. From previous magazine and daily and wire/service experience, can assure you that some of what I have encountered previously meets legal demands for that action. One pursued in Chicago paid off with several months lease dollars for Lakeshore Drive condo two blocks from Drake Hotel ! Can hardly await similar opportunity here on S-N, with costs at Seaside rising as the tide...

Henry Clay Ruark December 22, 2009 3:47 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
Perhaps my sometimes awkward writing/style --meant to be provocative much more than persuasive-- has now obscured the major point we need to confront here.

That pattern for "informed opinion" is standard in the profession, learned long ago and tested (sometimes also torn and tattered !) for a very long time now. (Sixty working years in most formats of communication and education.)

NO receiver rightly realizes meaning of any communication without some known-or-assumed sense of the sender.

That's flat communication research/sense established over many decades.
Know the source is the only possible resource realistic and pragmatic for that need.

Some ID-components can add much while still preserving privacy. It is flat fact of communication life that the refusal to share "from whence cometh my stuff" is realistic evidence of reason-to-hide.

Open information is part of ticket-payment for use of channel provided at no cost via patient persons like Tim and Bon, seeking to serve the community sensibly and very sensitively.

How else to force into full impotence those who definitely do seek malign impacts for any private-gain reason than by seeking ID ??

They earn that demand by their patent and obvious abuse of this S-N channel for anyone skilled to analyze content.

My effort here was to report the changing nature of many, if not most, Internet/blog comments --over the past four years of observation via some sampling and much reading.

That's undeniable national trend now, usually tied to some further ID required on repeated-comment now in leading channels, esp. by another participant's request.

Check to "see with own eyes" and run own sample-analyis, if you are still unaware of fact.

In no way did I intend to demand ID on every casual comment --or reading any book or other presentation-- prior to commenting.

But fact remains too many fire comment off-hand, without due thought or any check for further information --and sometimes after only too hasty reading missing some meanings.

My intent was to emphasize the realistic necessity for quality in all our comments NOW, added to them via a moment of cogitation prior to writing.

That can combine special experience, training, or past encounter worth sharing for mutual learnings here -a high value/advantage of contact with potentially millions of others over S-N, with its now worldwide distribution and acceptance.

Purpose was to illuminate for all the flat fact that what you present has a long life, goes everywhere, and has proven potent impact on what other people, worldwide, think of us as Americans --
As well as shaping what is now taken as "public opinion" when most represents a very narrow and often UNinformed, Misinformed OR even a subtle intentionally Malign and damaging statement.

Does intentional malignity happen ?
Youbetcha-- at S-N we have caught/and/proven some few, now banned and silenced.

It is also nationally now on way to recognition and remedy by federal agency, with real threat to openness of our treasured Internet currently.

As professional writer, I long ago learned to listen and learn from readers, and to fully appreciate good faith critical comment, while still separating those few whose own psychological traits, shown in their responses, mirrored the warning signs any pro soon learns to interpret.

"Intent" is impossible to determine by remote control,so best possible way to protect, preserve, strenthen, extend and avoid loss of privilege we enjoy here at S-N is to make double-damn/sure as you write
that continuing comment.

The American "right to free expression" is worth every efffort possible to protect, preserve and promote.

Open, honest, democratic dialog, as in S-N, is widely, deeply now understood as one of the most effective, potent and potentially sure ways.

What will you now DO ?
Try simple action of that moment of cogitation prior to fingering your keyboard...

Oregon Reader December 22, 2009 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

I did not realize that there were people that were "harassing" the site. Now I can understand the reason for this article. Are they doing anything that could be prosecuted, or sued civilly?

Tim King: Well, probably not, though we have been a conduit for a couple of people who have had some real serious tips for police, sort of an opposite affect but a good one. We've had some of the same bozo's writing awful stuff for years and years and we're pretty used to it. I guess this does sort of explain a few things! Thanks.

Fidel Castro December 22, 2009 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

Editor: For the record, this individual has been sending harrassing comments in to Salem-News.com for some time. Every now and then we take a look at the history and patterns of these indivicuals, and here we go again. Under one IP, this he-she has been using the names: Ken Hatfield, Morrison, Roger, Kilgore, Brian, Hadley, Stephen Monroe, Marshall, Josie, Johnson, Greg, Iraqi Vet, Harold Simms, Bil, Brother Conservative, Russ, Bernie Druck, Copernicus, Jojn Mikulic, Peggy R. Keith Brindell, Justin Much. Needless to say, this is a representative of the neocons and its comments are exclusively racist and fairly idiotic. He's a W. Bush and Limbaugh supporter. So for the record, if you see any of these names, know that it is one single individual who exploits our fair comment system, and has been caught.

Oregon Reader December 22, 2009 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, I agree that some people have been inflammatory. Perhaps you could have an email id system so that if there are comments that need to be replied to privately, you would have that resource. Other than than, you could let them know that their IP will be banned from making further comments when they step out of a reasonable bound. i do recall the shear number of similar comments and lack of punctuation, etc. re: the Ukrainian parents. They were clearly written by the same person. And the use of your system for such spamming should not be tolerated.

Tim King: Thanks, good ideas. One small thing is that I accused one Ukrainian household of using different names and concluded that there actually were numerous members of the family all contributing their thoughts. We run into a little of everything at Salem-News.com! Thanks for being here and for your suggestions.

Oregon Reader December 22, 2009 11:43 am (Pacific time)

I think that if full identification were required to make a comment, then this feature would die. There would be a small handful of people making all the comments. I would surely be one to no longer make comments. If it doesn't matter to Tim, then so be it. But I think that public discourse is useful and I have appreciated sharing my thoughts over time. And, to iterate, I am a private person. I don't think that anything I have written has been derogatory.

Tim King: I didn't read exactly what you are responding to, but I agree that you have not been a problem with what you have written here, and I appreciate that. We all have slightly different feelings about all of this, and Bonnie and I did specifically choose to make this easily accessible when we created the site with Matt Lintz. I can tell you that if the day comes that we implement any kind of sign in system, we will likely allow people to use pen names like this. If that event the sign in would be for our use only and no names would be disclosed as a matter of practice. Hank's biggest area of concern is that some people really post some bad stuff, and we've had every type you can imagine. In the past, things like comments were not possible for a news story. There are growing pains and a lot of spot education. It is hard for an longtime pro writer to have to argue a point in a public forum every time a new story is published, and that is why Hank (and this is primarily for the people who strongly disagree with a point we have made) wants people who challenge him on a serious, factual level, to i.d. themselves. So, I don't know if I am helping or not, but I want you and all other cool and mellow comment people to know that you are greatly appreciated, and the need to know more about some comment writers, the ones who specifically contradict what we write about, is what this centers around. I have a lot of respect for Hank, he is a mentor to me and I have learned a lot from him. I learn a lot from others also, every day, and sometimes it is via the comment section. Thanks again.

Jason December 21, 2009 1:58 pm (Pacific time)

Say Henry Ruark why don't you just have the policy on this site be required that the posters provide all the ID info that would meet your standard? Why just write about it, take some action and see what develops? But to have no privacy when it comes to voting for or against union membership is clearly a nonsensical perspective in my opinion. You either want to join or not, and union thuggery is no false rumor as criminal history of their past clearly shows.

Hank Ruark December 21, 2009 11:12 am (Pacific time)

Friend Al: Straight from the hip (read: lip), with documentation to follow, re your question. You wrote:"So what's your opinion on the open ballots unions want to have? " The union proposal deserves wide adoption with legal rigor to support it. When Congress finally learns to put down the perverted corporate campaign contribution bag(men)--in progress now demanded by other distressing debacles--you may well see reform which can have radical consequences, as now demanded for any pretense to equity under current laws, as interpreted by a now-distorted Supreme Court misshapen by past appointments. American history shows long, costly, bloody and extremely determined opposition, led by selfish private interests, to any advance whatsoever for the working class...with deep and desperate impacts on the whole middle class and "the American dream". Despite inevitable union leader defections and various despoilations, the comparison with corporate consequences from similar depredations is by far heavily weighted on the side of corporate guilt. The recent fiscal/financial debacle, more desperate than ever before, makes that point in resounding deeply damaged balances in pension and other protective areas for millions. The New Deal and its long- preceding/and/following situations, including much in Detroit and the car industry, proves precisely, predictably the kind/and/level of policy and its consequences sure to occur --for which we are now seeing still further --and deeper-- consequences, both positive and negative. That do for a starter ? Now what do you respond re YOUR own view ? Might pick up on each point with any solid rebuttal not b/button/built. Try to avoid that bugaboo of "circular"-error previously illuminated here, and supply something you can document, as for each of my statements made above, some from previous Op Eds,accessible at Staff notes. Re "transparency" for polic y formation, dollar-paid distortion/perversion of what was once honest, shaping public opinion by informed citizens leaves little other choice for those seeking the commonweal. You ask how we can control all-such; we still hold vote, reflecting "informed opinion" built from reliable sources, and guiding careful citizen choice by those concerned enough to dialog, share and learn.

Henry Clay Ruark December 21, 2009 8:28 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Flat-out undeniable fact is that knowing source --as in any other civil conversation--
enhances value of any dialog or other communication, in any format.

Honest-name is demanded as civil assurance of accepted responsibility/accountability, with any shared further aspect from source that much more helpful --and assuring both acceptance and impact of what is stated.

WHY write it if unable or unwilling to support it by its source and back/up situation ?

Simple notes ("I'm teacher", "...engineer, "...businessman"
"...technician","...tradesman"
or "...union member" can help by indicating working surround from which comment MUST come.

Avoidance of telling detail mostly by chance; some malign intended to hide deadly fact of rapacious purpose.

WHY allow bad/faith abusers to defy, deny, damage what an honest dialog can bring to so many thousands to share/learn?

Simple solution: Comfortable checkable ID-facts when any dialogger requests same via courteous note - allowing that respondent full-shot open to good faith honest statement.

Pro-writers MUST sign stuff for ANY accountability.
This simple-note provides honest, fair offset for those commenters acting in good faith, prevents those acting with malign intent from continuing free/ride via open, honest,democratic challenge in the public eye.

Al Marnelli December 21, 2009 9:29 am (Pacific time)

Henry I'm not surprised that your time in Chicago taught you a lot. I also agree with your comment (which I often use for those who engage in a confused thought process): "If heat bothers you stay out of kitchen !" So what's your opinion on the open ballots unions want to have? Ersun I certainly expect our elected officals to be transparent when dealing with their opinions/votes/behaviors that impact public policy. So when we elect individuals that promise to be transparent and they fail to do this, not just once, but in a continuous fashion, what do you think we voters should do about that? I have noticed that for some, dissent is patriotic, and for others it is entirely something else. But when we expect total transparency from those who work for us and they go behind closed doors making policy that we have no idea what it is and how it will impact us, then should we just ignore that? It is true opinions are a dime a dozen, but sometimes some of those opinions can be priceless. I go to some websites that require full ID and some that don't. I have found those that allow fo someone to be anonymous provide for more interesting comments, and the exchanges are more stimulating. I guess you go with what is SOP for that particular website. Of course we have such a divided population filled with sad little people who just cannot tolerate those who have different viewpoints. Sounds like America.

Editor: The truth of the matter is that we get some real crackpots who use "keyboard bravery" when criticizing our reports, who make all kinds of claims that are false. Yes, there is a certain freedom that goes with the territory. When people make whimsical, funny, or clever statements, they always run. When people (this is a frequent recent example) boldly claim by the dozen that a set of parents who beat their children are perfectly legit in what they have done, we have to pay much closer attention. So no, you are not correct in it being "more stimulating", that is not the case.

Henry Clay Ruark December 21, 2009 8:01 am (Pacific time)

Amigo Vic: Photo chosen by editor, not me,shows theft from a Maine weekly for folo-story in only daily serving area, "catches me in act" totally normal in profession. Will send direct couple of others. One in Chicago, shot by associate heading photo school, shows full-face AND fingers in a representative posture...you will enjoy !! Seaside reality best left undisclosed due to our current comment conflagration re ID and honesty here, at least until after coffee with friend Al... That's part of activist role to start fire, blow on flames, revive embers...what burns is probably best so consumed.

Henry Clay Ruark December 20, 2009 6:12 pm (Pacific time)

Ersun et al: Thank you for concise, precise summary of major points involved in working writers' professional need to sign name. (Try selling copy to sharp Editor as "Anon" !) You are absolutely correct in assessment of most anon or otherwise obscured. Internet is worldwide public and anyone participating is responsible/accountable, with image of this nation and its people in plain view, too...so there is dual demand for care and concern re both content and consequences --unless you strictly "do not give a tinker's damn!" and seek only personal psychological return. OR: Ol' Ben also made sure pen name was wellknown, did not use it to obscure or "hide behind tree" to avoid his well understood accounability and responsibility. See major biogs. on this point, esp. on his English contacts. Pontius: Federalists were Hamilton, Madison, Jay. Recent scholarly studies of Federalist Papers genesis now indicate they were widely distributed to newspaper editors, most of whom via receipt knew all three. Since F/Ps were political persuasive stuff (read: At that time, flat-out propaganda) it only makes sense for them to want to be known as authors, since their names, reputations,and careers were what made these somewhat complex statements not only persuasive but authoritative. (Refs. available on request to Editor with full ID; small fee: $25.00.)

Oregon Reader December 20, 2009 4:51 pm (Pacific time)

Even Ben Franklin used a pen name...

Ersun Warncke December 20, 2009 3:52 pm (Pacific time)

I agree that in order for an online communications forum to have relavence it is preferable for people to identify themselves. I write things all the time that are "career suicide." For me, it is just an easy way of winnowing out people who I would not want to work with anyway. In terms of really engaging in constructive social dialogue, if you are not willing to attach your name to it, then it does not have much value. Opinion is a dime a dozen. The only thing that matters is action. If an opinion is anonymous, it is usually unaccompanied by action. There are some exceptions, but most of the time this holds true. I put my name on everything I write, because there is nothing that I write that I would not say to any person directly. Anyone who wants to can come and talk to me. My address is published everywhere too. To me, that is the only way to stay honest in an otherwise impersonal communications format. I fully understand concerns of people for privacy, but I think that if you are discussing issues of public policy, then you must discuss these publicly.

Henry Clay Ruark December 20, 2009 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

Al et al: "If heat bothers you stay out of kitchen !" "Demonization" is meaningful varying with whom is burned and why...some deserve it via deliberate abuse of channel privilege here. Re "vote", that's dangerous stance given proven, pragmatic persuasive distortion and $$$ perversion so obviously now prevalent at every level. IF Americans truly cogitated for that action, do you really believe we'd be in such bloody mess on every problem and every issue ? It is naive in extreme to think that last weapon of the people has not also been both distorted and perverted !! Perhaps my decade in Chicago has something to do with that intensely-felt "perception" !!

Henry Clay Ruark December 20, 2009 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

By coincidence friend DJ has insightful piece re Facts and how they speak, current here now. For further relevance here, too, see my comment in partial disagreement on that thread. Recent exploration of blog books, reports, studies, and research indicates about 85% of Comments are off-cuff, some 50% MISinformed or often very obviously UNinformed,20% flat irrelevant; only 5% or less are Malignant. Various sources for these percents,documentation varies, cited from memory. Will report on study when it is completed, for LMA client. Content analyses underway may show different percents. No intention of supporting sign-in/demanded, believe big strength of Internet is its freedom; but foresee damages underway by malignities which will force control all too soon. Simple signature, as for Letters in newspaper, is the most effective,easiest answer. Full ID, citing any special "right to speak", is simply professional courtesy now when requested, supports valid and honest dialog as intended in S-N from start. Prevention in hands of those using open-channel freedom as in S-N: Protect it by what you write, or lose it when abuse so great it can no longer be tolerated. For urgency involved check out national Internet sites re media; will cite several soon. Thanks to all for insightful and civil participation !!

Al Marnelli December 20, 2009 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

Vic what do you think about those people who have spoken out and have been demonized and worse? It's pretty obvious that we have the secret ballot so people can be free of recriminations for the way they vote. Obviously most people who post on websites also feel that being anonymous is a "right." I use my own name because I am not worried about recriminations, I have a game plan you might say in dealing with those who attack me or my family, but just the same since this website asks for comments/opinions why should someone worry about that? Call for changing the secret ballot and see how others respond. I see no big difference between voting or providing an opinion on this site as per the current set-up. If you become required to ID yourself beyond your IP, then people can address that at that time. There are some pretty mean spirited people out there, and you never know what's going to tee them off which may cause them to act out.

Vic Pittman December 20, 2009 8:00 am (Pacific time)

Oregon Reader...I do not mind sharing my name...BUT, I am self-employed, which gives me a bit more freedom. However, my writing here and on other sites, along with ads/statements that we have placed in the local papers re the wars have cost us business and customers. I dont need those customers. They can go to some right-winger's sign shop and probably pay twice as much for all I care. One of my oldest customers quit using us after I put a quote from Pope John Paul II in the paper.."Humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it. " Funny thing is, this customer is and was a Catholic...now he can get his signs from someone else.

Vic, here’s a quote from Eisenhower: “I hate war, as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”

Publius December 20, 2009 4:55 am (Pacific time)

The Federalist papers were published anonymously under the "Publius" pseudonym!

Oregon Reader December 19, 2009 7:41 pm (Pacific time)

I don't agree that people need to provide details pertaining to who they are in order to comment. Some people are very private, such as myself. I do want to share comments and try not to be inflammatory.

However, I am a very private person and would not want someone, searching the Internet, to be able to read about every thought I wanted to share.

Isn't that my prerogative? The technology we use is not like the old day newspapers that one would read and then recycle. I wrote letters to the Editor of the conventional newspaper, where you had to be "checked" via phone call. I probably would not have written if the information was easily retrievable on-line. Not because I was ashamed or embarrassed, etc. of what I wrote, but simply to protect my privacy. Does it really matter if I am "Joe Schmoe" or "Fred Smith"? How does a name matter? You folks have access to the IP, so each individual is being "identified". How does their true identity matter as it relates to their opinion?

I have been reading your articles and comments for several years now. You often used to talk about those "sniping" from behind the trees. I did not agree with you then, and I am even more disagreeable with you now.

Think about this: If I were an insider at a company or a state agency and I wanted to reveal information that might be useful to our democratic society, would I choose to do so if my identity was revealed?

I do not like discussing many topics, but I will if my identity can be concealed. But again, ONLY because I would not want my spouse, my friends, my boss and coworkers, etc. to know my view on every point I might choose to share.

In essence, the privacy INCREASES the openness.

This is Daniel: OR, I agree with you completely. From my point of view it’s about having a good dialog with my readers. If you sign yourself as “John Doe”, I don’t care, as long as I know I am always hearing from or responding to, the same person. Lots of people sign as “Anonymous” and how do I distinguish one from the other? Or some people choose the same first name. You have chosen “Oregon Reader” and as long as you are consistent, I will always know I am interacting with the same person. In the final analysis, your real name, where you live and work, are irrelevant. What’s important to me is that you’re interacting with something I wrote.

Oregon Reader December 19, 2009 7:43 pm (Pacific time)

Hey Vic, what is your last name and what is your address? Oh, just give me your full name and where you work, I can find out everything else about you. Don't want to share these details? I don't blame you... that is precisely my point!

Vic December 19, 2009 5:17 pm (Pacific time)

I agree, Henry my Amigo...If I feel strongly enough about something to want to write on it, I feel that should put my name on it...even if I may lose business, friends or even get into trouble I also feel that if I write a story and put my picture below it, the picture should be no more than thirty years old, unless I am trying to slyly hide my identity by using an old black and white picture from the early days of photography that no longer resembles myself...;) Looking forward to a more honest and truly representaive photograph of you, my friend...unless you still look the same, in which case, would like to know your secret!

[Return to Top]