Kicking Around Ideas...Or Just Kicking
"They fire it off, wanting to blow off steam," says Williams, 46. "They think maybe you read it, but they are not thinking that they are going to engage in a dialogue with you."As direct interactivity with the audience becomes a more necessary role for news outlets to play, inevitable questions arise about what feedback from the audience is appropriate to acknowledge or address directly. Especially when that feedback has a particularly vitriolic ring to it.So when Williams hits the "reply" button, taking exception when it is suggested — as it often is — that he hates America for one reason or another, most writers are stunned that he has responded. "They'll respond, 'Dear Mr. Williams, I couldn't believe it was you. I didn't mean any offense.' "
An example arose recently at The Denver Post, which has got some attention for publishing a letter to the editor that suggested those who criticize the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay should be beheaded. Editor & Publisherdescribed the letter:
"Why have those who have continually howled at our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo met the recent kidnapping and sadistic and brutal murders of our two young soldiers with deafening silence?" the letter began. "Where is your outrage now?" It then stated that the U.S. "should" behead 100 prisoners in retaliation, as well as "editors, commentators, college professors and left-wing congressmen who would suddenly break their silence to come out in support of these enemy jihadists. We need to stop listening to these sanctimonious hypocrites who apply the rules of war only to our side."Post Editorial Page Editor Jon Wolman told E&P that the decision to publish it was based on the idea that "there are extreme opinions out there and censuring them or pretending they don't exist wouldn't reasonably add to the debate."
"Clearly, it is an extreme commentary and you might expect it reflects a strain of opinion that is out there," Wolman told E&P. "We make an editorial judgment. Is it too extreme for people to know that there is a strain of that commentary out there? Sadly, some people feel as strongly as the letter-writer."
With all the interaction that's going on these days between news organizations and their audiences, this is obviously an issue that's going to come up more and more in the future. Especially as more mainstream news organization use blogs – with comments sections – as a means of communicating with the audience.
With a comments section here at Public Eye, it's a matter that we address nearly every day. Those of you who are frequent visitors have likely noticed that our comments section can be a repository for invective as much as reasoned commentary (some -- i.e., me -- might argue the former happens more often than the latter.) For example, following a post I wrote last week about why Congress' debate over a non-binding resolution on the Iraq war was getting so much attention, frequent commenter oneofmanyusa had this to say:
Disgusting. The Republican party will stoop to a dog and pony show to hammer the public with its support for a bloodbath for corporate greed. We need to wake up and vote out these cheap hucksters in November, and show them that we, as patriots, will not submit to the coup that Bush and company have perpetrated upon on us!That may not be as offensive as suggesting that certain individuals be beheaded, but does it rise to the level of removal?
That, of course, is a judgment call. And we've occasionally made the decision to remove certain comments when we feel that they cross the line between what's critical and what's just offensive. Those guidelines are obviously not cut and dry, but we've outlined a general idea in our rules of engagement.
Of course, there is one other way to handle the issue of feedback when it appears more crude than constructive -- eliminate it entirely.