Some days, it seems our website is a battlefield.
If you've seen some of the online comments to stories on our website, you know what we mean. Some days, the verbal carnage left by a particularly heated - and sometimes hateful - war of words leaves us all a little shell-shocked.
We are calling a cease-fire.
As a small-market newspaper dedicated to community journalism, The Monroe Times wants to spur discussion on local issues and help create a deeper sense of community involvement in and with our readers. What we don't want is to be little more than a trash receptacle for mean-spirited and abusive comments.
That is why we are creating more stringent guidelines for the comments we allow readers to make online.
Let's be clear: The majority of comments are offered in the vein of honest, open, respectful communication. Some have prompted a smile and nod of agreement. Some have posed intriguing questions, offered legitimate feedback and brought important issues to light. A few have been just plain wacky. But for the most part, our posters have offered their comments in the spirit of constructive communication.
The problem is the posters who resort to name-calling and using obscene or inappropriate language, and posters who present wild rumor and allegation as cold, hard fact.
Particularly troubling are the anonymous snipers who lie in wait, poised to sling venomous arrows at anyone who happens to be in the way - for no apparent reason other than they can. People have been hurt, and for that we apologize.
It's our intention to rectify that situation immediately. As it stands now, we review comments before they are allowed and don't post the most objectionable ones. But we continue to struggle with the varying shades of gray that compromise the integrity of our online forums.
We need better rules, clear rules, to change a sometimes bloody battlefield into a level playing field, one where all can feel free to enter the game.
That's why we're crafting new guidelines to better determine what gets posted and what doesn't. People who choose to post will be required to follow the rules; those who don't won't be able to play.
What will these guidelines look like? We have some ideas, and those will be presented on this space in tomorrow's edition. But before we make any final decisions, we want input from our readers to make sure we're providing an opportunity for the highest possible use of our online forums.
It's been a long time coming. But the matter of online comments is a complex issue, one that deserves thoughtful consideration and input from you, our readers.
We're taking an unusual step and not allowing comments on this editorial. Too often, comments on one topic get posted in a variety of locations on our website, making it confusing for readers to follow the full conversation. We ask your patience for another day: We want your comments but prefer they be attached to tomorrow's editorial, after you've had a chance to read our thoughts on posting guidelines.
If you've seen some of the online comments to stories on our website, you know what we mean. Some days, the verbal carnage left by a particularly heated - and sometimes hateful - war of words leaves us all a little shell-shocked.
We are calling a cease-fire.
As a small-market newspaper dedicated to community journalism, The Monroe Times wants to spur discussion on local issues and help create a deeper sense of community involvement in and with our readers. What we don't want is to be little more than a trash receptacle for mean-spirited and abusive comments.
That is why we are creating more stringent guidelines for the comments we allow readers to make online.
Let's be clear: The majority of comments are offered in the vein of honest, open, respectful communication. Some have prompted a smile and nod of agreement. Some have posed intriguing questions, offered legitimate feedback and brought important issues to light. A few have been just plain wacky. But for the most part, our posters have offered their comments in the spirit of constructive communication.
The problem is the posters who resort to name-calling and using obscene or inappropriate language, and posters who present wild rumor and allegation as cold, hard fact.
Particularly troubling are the anonymous snipers who lie in wait, poised to sling venomous arrows at anyone who happens to be in the way - for no apparent reason other than they can. People have been hurt, and for that we apologize.
It's our intention to rectify that situation immediately. As it stands now, we review comments before they are allowed and don't post the most objectionable ones. But we continue to struggle with the varying shades of gray that compromise the integrity of our online forums.
We need better rules, clear rules, to change a sometimes bloody battlefield into a level playing field, one where all can feel free to enter the game.
That's why we're crafting new guidelines to better determine what gets posted and what doesn't. People who choose to post will be required to follow the rules; those who don't won't be able to play.
What will these guidelines look like? We have some ideas, and those will be presented on this space in tomorrow's edition. But before we make any final decisions, we want input from our readers to make sure we're providing an opportunity for the highest possible use of our online forums.
It's been a long time coming. But the matter of online comments is a complex issue, one that deserves thoughtful consideration and input from you, our readers.
We're taking an unusual step and not allowing comments on this editorial. Too often, comments on one topic get posted in a variety of locations on our website, making it confusing for readers to follow the full conversation. We ask your patience for another day: We want your comments but prefer they be attached to tomorrow's editorial, after you've had a chance to read our thoughts on posting guidelines.
