Web 2.0: The Jackass’s Bullhorn

I come from the school of publishing that says: “Never take on a reader. You have all the ammo. So if you do, you’ll look like a petty bully and you’ll lose subscribers.”

But that rule was crafted in the days of print publications where the only voice readers had was in the letters-to-the-editor section for which editors played gatekeeper and always had the last word if they chose to voice it.

Moreover, the letters published were those that the editors believed added to the discussion or advanced the debate.

Enter the reader comments section on publisher Web sites. Out go the gatekeepers. In come the reasons we thought we needed gatekeepers in the first place.

Not that I’m arguing for the return of the days of editorial gatekeepers, mind you. The media has demonstrated itself to be incapable of wielding that power responsibly.

However, with the advent of reader comments, we have entered an era of unprecedented public incivility.

Yes, I understand that we still gate-keep by blocking comments that contain racism and other unacceptable content, but with reader comments, the gate is more porous than ever.

Take the following: last week a judge in Utah dismissed a lawsuit against the state’s comically misnamed child-protection do-not-e-mail registry—an issue I’ve been covering, much to the boredom of some readers, for several years.

At the end of the piece I wrote on this development for Direct’s daily newsletter Newsline, someone writing under the name “name” posted the following:

“Ken seems to have taken the write-an-article-once-a-month position at Directmag. Glad to see he can fall back on old standbys. Pathetic.”

This comment—along with a couple previous, similar ones—presents a dilemma.

Yes, he’s begging for an ass-kicking, but to attempt to do so could backfire.

I thought long and hard and here’s how I handled it:

“You’re right. I don’t write for Newsline as much as I used to these days. I’ve got other duties.

“But I believed this story was important so I took time off my other work to write it, naively thinking I was doing a favor for Newsline’s editor and performing a service for its readers.

“Stupid me.”

I thought I handled that one OK, though Newsline’s editor, Richard Levey, said some would take my response to mean I didn’t think he appreciated my efforts. We communicate on a daily basis and I know he doesn’t feel that way.

In any case, here’s the problem: Crafting a policy for handling ignorant comments from anonymous jerks without coming off as, well, just as ignorant as the jerk who commented in the first place.

Also, I understand that letting the jackass bray is often the best policy. But some comments must be addressed.

So far, I’ve decided that anyone who makes a jackass comment anonymously is fair game, but should be dealt with in a more civil tone than they began the exchange. However, I’ll admit I utterly failed the “civil” part in another exchange.

I’ve since vowed to engage the anonymous jerks who make comments I believe need to be addressed, but show restraint in doing so.

Beyond that, though, I’m kind of at a loss. Anyone have any ideas?