“Open ID” Necessary For Full Credibilities On Net
(SALEM) - One great and shining opportunity for all, in our democracy, is under open attack, with protracted and pernicious new damage: “Anonymous” now screams-and-runs, sometimes with cutting invective, on our most-open Internet channels.
Within the lines of comments written by readers in reaction to news stories, sports, entertainment and opinion is found the most diverse and unabashed demonstration of communication yet. People will write anything. Even foul language and physical threat is, too often, now found on what many contend is becoming the most powerful means for citizens to share --and even shape-- many demanding issues today.
Anyone brashly braving this insidious onslaught for needfully-open presentation of ANY issue, aspiration, problem or prospect - even “unchallengeable truth”— may become at once a target.
Then, far too often, that truth comes under attack, via voluminous, volatile and often very mistaken and too-rapid “conclusions”.
This is dangerous to the conversation. Such “conclusions” are, far too often, accompanied by personal prejudice and too-strong language devoid of checkable facts, but deep on desperate ploys; many from long-past historic situations, and are also devoid of updated information, facts that have been discovered and proven.
There are those comment contributors who wish only to belittle, beat away, and “best” whatever point, perspective or even prospect may be under discussion, for personal reasons.
The Internet does provide a place for that conversation, a full accommodation for all via its own considerably-used format: The blog. (Formed from the two words: web log)
For those who feel they must declare their own personal, sometimes particular and peculiar, strong feelings and beliefs, that’s the way --and the place-- to go. It can be productive and satisfying, as well as safer, as broad experience has already proven.
Established professional points recognize that those few are often desperately seeking any open channel, driven by their own political, psychological --even, sometimes, psychotic-- needs.
Communication research, ever since it began a century ago, is replete with similar instances, incidents, and solid situation-findings.
That was fact long before there was anything much but the “Letters to the Editor” outlet, much abused also early-on, until newspaper and magazine editors demanded definite ID, forced by these same situations.
Most persons, managing their own messages for this new and seductively-open mechanism for “free speech”, utilize this new opportunity both productively and with deep regard for both the sensitivities --and the indisputably-remaining rights, too-- of others so inclined and participating.
Thus Internet dialog/discussion --in lieu of our vaunted-open “free press” now denied to so many for so much of what was once democratic dialog-- has the capabilities to become by far the most-useful and most essential rapid, convenient and valuable channel that our democracy has ever had.
BUT that must depend on HOW we use it.
That better-channel --the Internet-- now more readily and easily available, also demands precisely what the Editors found had to be handled for “Letters”: Responsible oversight, with professional supervision, to maintain the same “rights for each and every one” as originally bestowed by our once-vauntedly-”free” press; now well known to be manipulated and “managed”, far too often, for corporate and condign censure.
That is, unavoidably, precisely WHY the Internet has now become, by far, the choice of so many: They are driven by these circumstances to seek similar and more-open channels for their own ongoing --sometimes desperate OR despairing!-- declarations of very widely different political, social, economic and religious feelings, beliefs --and deepening concerns.
What some overlook, perhaps understandable since “the channel” is still so new for so many, is that ANY communication --to be credible and thus intensely applicable to situation, issue, event or even “opinion”-- must be documented from an easily-checkable source.
HOW ELSE to endow any statement with absolutely essential basis for believability?
Otherwise we have only “belly-button” feeling, perhaps symptomatic, but surely unproven and unreliable, too.
“The source” --and thus “the pitch” revealed-- are both unavoidable for any useful democratic dialog, in ANY channel, at ANY time --and, surely, more demanded NOW than ever before!
Most basically-thoughtful citizens understand that is an unavoidable consequence, today, of what has been done by so many, in such devious fashion, to most of the channels in which we trusted as we grew up, learning the realities governing American life these days.
Given the longtime American-experience since the Reagan Era --and its own self-exposed, well-documented attacks on our governing principles at all levels-- surely this easily-accessed communications channel for honest, open democratic dialog must now be better-protected, somehow.
“Anonymous” must learn to do better for fully demonstrated reasons.
Those routinely passing along any “no-named non-ID’d” dialog must also now --driven by the same necessities as the print-side “open” press-- take similar care to provide responsible, professional oversight for all.
The fact is that Internet addresses are essential for any message-delivery; they can be utilized as basic identification for back-checking when forced by circumstance or consequence - a fact perhaps unknown to most “Anonymous” contributors. As with print-side experience, a few inevitable follow-up court-cases may make this point - painfully.
For proprietors and professionals providing oversight on any site for all others, the demanded answer to all insisting on irresponsible avoidance of due care-and-concern for the overwhelming rights of others, there’s this simple answer:
“It’s my publication, AND my public responsibility, and I WILL protect it from any-and-all malign influences OR similar irresponsible invasions.”
Given the longtime and responsible open history of the American “free press” --until now-captured and considerably altered by big-corporate combination-- what else can competent, caring and contemporary web-publishers now do with this Internet channel?
To allow this burgeoning new opportunity to return to “tell it true for me-and-you” --via documentable and easily checkable source-situations-- is perhaps the most workable-way.
Credibility. It’s what readers want the most from this new medium, and it’s in short supply.
Which is why we do our Op Eds the way we do: Documented for all to see-and-learn, via our early-on statement; see How and Why We Do Our Op Eds.
(Disclosure: My “checkered” background includes distressing similar experience with “Letters” at daily, weekly and magazine-levels. I now seek “openness multiplied” via Internet, but with needed responsibilities.)
Go to STAFF section on our home page, seek out HCR-section, click on “Written by...”, for:Salem-News.com (May-24-2006 13:39)What, Why, HowRe Op-Ed GenerationWhere Salem-News Op-Ed Content Comes From -- And WHY.
Op Ed: Free Speech Has Costs:Salem-News.com