![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And Now the News
Jul. 18th, 2012 10:36 amThe following comments were posted in response to editorial manipulation of reader comments on an article in Syracuse.com, the online version of the local newspaper. I'm re-posting my comments here because I have no doubt that they will soon disappear from the forum where they were originally posted. Phrases like "an inconvenient truth" come to mind.
The article I was commenting on was actually a very sensitive and well-written follow-up on the shooting death of a young black graduate of a local college after he returned home to Harlem. I seriously could've cried when I read it. This very accomplished young son of a single mother had been accepted for graduate studies at the University at Albany in the fall and was one of those kids who would've been a difference-maker wherever he went and whatever he did.
The problem comes with the newspaper's handling of the readers' comments after the article. For the record, I've said many times how fortunate we are to have an online newspaper that allows reader comments without requiring payment of a subscription fee as does my hometown newspaper. Which, in effect, places a "financial filter" on participation in public forums and, consequently, a very real and fundamental limitation on our right to free speech.
Glenn Coin is the Post-Standard writer who did the original story and he participated, early on, in a brief exchange of comments with a reader whose screen name is "lightless." Coin's comment was cordial, even complimentary, but soon afterward someone began deleting comments apparently deemed tangential to the story and the Post-Standard's intent in publishing it.
I don't know what role Coin himself actually played in that process, but I addressed my comments to him since this sledge hammer editing had involved one of his responses.
Glenn, What sense does it make to thank "lightless" for his comment and then allow it to be deleted? I'm sorry if some readers are offended by the direction these comments sometimes take but, seriously, this is a public forum, not Legacy.com.
Glenn, c'mon, "lightless" had at least two comments on this article and this is not the one that you originally responded to.
How is this "cut and paste" tactic for dealing with inconsistencies in forum management, ie. censorship, any different than the scandal over photoshopped pictures that led to charges of manipulation against a major news organization a few years ago?
The only difference here is that it's being done with words instead of pictures. Which, I suppose, is a step up since it implies that some of us can read. But seriously, I'm both alarmed and disappointed.
And I was right. A few minutes after posting this in LiveJournal, I went back to the online news article and my comments were gone. However, the Post-Standard's "cut and paste" version of its dialogue with its readers still stands. Another overused but sadly appropriate quote comes to mind: "Freedom of the press is for those who own the press."
I find it ironic that we can freely post at a site under Russian ownership but that here, in the "land of the free and the home of the brave," we're routinely and arbitrarily denied that privilege...
LPK
LiveJournal
7.18.2012 (a)
The article I was commenting on was actually a very sensitive and well-written follow-up on the shooting death of a young black graduate of a local college after he returned home to Harlem. I seriously could've cried when I read it. This very accomplished young son of a single mother had been accepted for graduate studies at the University at Albany in the fall and was one of those kids who would've been a difference-maker wherever he went and whatever he did.
The problem comes with the newspaper's handling of the readers' comments after the article. For the record, I've said many times how fortunate we are to have an online newspaper that allows reader comments without requiring payment of a subscription fee as does my hometown newspaper. Which, in effect, places a "financial filter" on participation in public forums and, consequently, a very real and fundamental limitation on our right to free speech.
Glenn Coin is the Post-Standard writer who did the original story and he participated, early on, in a brief exchange of comments with a reader whose screen name is "lightless." Coin's comment was cordial, even complimentary, but soon afterward someone began deleting comments apparently deemed tangential to the story and the Post-Standard's intent in publishing it.
I don't know what role Coin himself actually played in that process, but I addressed my comments to him since this sledge hammer editing had involved one of his responses.
Glenn, What sense does it make to thank "lightless" for his comment and then allow it to be deleted? I'm sorry if some readers are offended by the direction these comments sometimes take but, seriously, this is a public forum, not Legacy.com.
The truth is that this is an absolutely heartbreaking story but one with implications and consequences that reach far beyond the personal. And those implications and consequences need to be discussed in public forums like this one.
Thank you for what I sense is your willingness to consider the broader implications of this tragedy and for allowing this to be a true public forum in the minutes before someone less enlightened hit the "delete" button and diminished that freedom for all of us.
Unbelieveably, the editors then cut and pasted another comment by the same reader, which they judged to be less controversial, above the newswriter's response.
Glenn, c'mon, "lightless" had at least two comments on this article and this is not the one that you originally responded to.
How is this "cut and paste" tactic for dealing with inconsistencies in forum management, ie. censorship, any different than the scandal over photoshopped pictures that led to charges of manipulation against a major news organization a few years ago?
The only difference here is that it's being done with words instead of pictures. Which, I suppose, is a step up since it implies that some of us can read. But seriously, I'm both alarmed and disappointed.
And I was right. A few minutes after posting this in LiveJournal, I went back to the online news article and my comments were gone. However, the Post-Standard's "cut and paste" version of its dialogue with its readers still stands. Another overused but sadly appropriate quote comes to mind: "Freedom of the press is for those who own the press."
I find it ironic that we can freely post at a site under Russian ownership but that here, in the "land of the free and the home of the brave," we're routinely and arbitrarily denied that privilege...
LPK
LiveJournal
7.18.2012 (a)
