Home : Blogs : Barry Hurd : Barry's Blog

The Seattle PI and the KKK

How anonymity destroys the very nature of community.

One of the proud things that led me to blogging is that it allows a forum to share my voice and opinion with the world. With over a decade of experience communicating online through various e-mails, bulletin boards, forums, and blogs… there have been hundreds of times where I ask myself not if I can do something, but should I?

When I am walking down a street, my voice is kept in-check by my interpretation of how people may view my actions and words. I do not use derogatory terms and I do not curse. I pause for a moment before stating thoughts that may be damaging or hurtful, as once said they are a reflection of who I am and what I believe.

In the past thirty days, one of my favorite print news site – The Seattle PI, has opened a discussion via the blogosphere and has done something that I ethically do not support. I am a proponent of free-speech, but the value of a statement is weighed by the supporting experience of a person’s history and whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what they have said.

As newspapers like the Seattle PI open up massive communities to online conversation, they fail to educate the masses on the basics of online etiquette. The following are two examples of a well renowned media voice allowing slander to be thrown across an online forum with what appears to be little or no regard to the affected parties.

I do not believe that either of these examples would ever be allowed to reach a print version of the Seattle PI, as the online discussion reminds me of granting web visitors white hoods and torches so that they can use an anonymous face to say things they would not say in any other environment. In my opinion as a supporter of blogging and social media, this pushes the very definition of slander and libel and also leaves me with a shallow feeling that a respected news source would rather have a bloody “he said, she said” fight with no accountability just for the ratings.

The first example covers a technical recruiting company in the northwest- Jobster. At the end of 2006, information was leaked out of the start-up company and several blog posts were made by the CEO indicating the company would be restructured. When everyone came back from the holiday break, a not-so-standard layoff occurred with roughly 60 employees (apparently they all knew it was coming.)

I read several blog articles regarding what was happening over a week long drama at that office. The employees and remaining staff were all thrown off-balance by a significant change to their daily lives, affected individuals were left dealing with losing a group of family and friends (Jobster was not a typical company, people actually liked one another there.) Yet the “news breaking” column of John Cook allowed dozens of unsupported comments to be made by nameless visitors. The commentary includes personal bashes of the CEO and of claims made about the internal workings of Jobster by people claiming to be employees.

I thought that it was distasteful and was an accidental editorial mistake, thinking the Seattle PI could not be that ignorant of the fact that they were aiding competitors and angry x-employees to put up potentially damaging commentary. I do not know Jason Goldberg (except for having read his blog), but I wonder if any decent person would say those things in an actual live audience or claim a business model didn’t work if it could be argued by proper business analysis.

Fifty years ago, we allowed people to put on white hoods and burn people to death under whatever pretense they cared to imagine.

Is the digital age of social responsibility falling flat on its face?

I was holding a deep hope that this was a mistake by the Seattle PI. I’m sure it had happened with other media players across the nation, but a few weeks later the Seattle PI did it again with a very similar story about another layoff at HouseValues. The commentary seemed to be less targeted against a personality, but still the CEO received numerous attacks and the remaining business was hammered by anonymous commentary.

“I am a former employee” does not hold any accountability. Claiming to be someone (or something) without providing some credible evidence or way to check your claim is bad business. If I logged on today and claimed to be Bill Gates, someone would be checking. I would hope that someone across the media footprint of the world is looking at this type of situation and asking if this blind conversation is newsworthy, or if this anonymous stone throwing is merely a way to sell a little more advertising while a fictional fight has more gasoline thrown on the fire.

In previous years, a “credible source” for a reporter extended beyond someone being able to type in some random commentary and hitting “submit”

Posted by Barry Hurd on 01/30/2007 01:15 PM

Comments (34)

blogging, community, marketing

34 Comments on The Seattle PI and the KKK

JAN

2007

Barry, I am not logged in but had to comment. The crux of the issue to me is respect. Free speech should not be stifled. But I continue to get saddened by the fact that facts and serious or complex issues get reduced to name calling and rage. A lack of respect was an issue before blogging. Realty Blogging got into the issue of bloggers inverting the pyramid and becoming the 'source reporters' as opposed to the print reporters. Well to me, that means the same amount of social responsibility and respect should be applied that I expected from print media. I was talking with another blogger on her post last week about how I joined a Forum under my real name because I don't want to say anything under the cloak of anonymity that I don't want to see in print ten years from now. She feels the same way. This is a good topic I am looking forward to hearing more comments on this

Barry, I agree with your arguments completely. Trusted news sources have a responsibilty to know who's contributing to the story. Free speech is important and we should each be responsible and accountable for our words. Well said.

Thanks for the comments Carole and Norm. Usually I stick to straight blogging 101 stuff, but sometimes the mainstream media sucks me into a conundrum and I'm left chewing on an idea. I wish more readers out there realized the significance of what some of the "itty bitty" aspects of technology let us do.

JAN

2007

Trusted news sources and REALTORS who are bound to the COE should take care in what they post or allow to be posted on the web. Libel is serious and cannot be brushed aside with a short and sweet little "disclaimer." Damaging a company, reputation or a life in the name of ratings or points is morally and ethically wrong.

It's a sad state in society when anonymous commenters are given credence.

This is the problem I have with all of the"wikipedia" information that is out there. Especially the real estate wiki information on Zillow. No one who posts information has to support it or back it up. They do not have to provide credentials. There isn't much on the internet that should be trusted as true until it has been researched and supported. I agree, there is a responsibility to not add fuel to a flame by creating an open forum with no accountability but where to draw the line? It shows us a growing problem in society. People do not, in any way, expect to be held responsible for anything they do or say.

Barry...

Until I joined Active Rain I ignored the Internet. Why? Well just look at what you have written here.

I don't go for this crap. The Internet is out of control and that is not a good thing. You are so right about people hiding behind anonymity. They can say anything they want without fear of having to be held accountable for their actions.

It's a mess out there and no one is taking responsibility for the nasty things they do. I mean really, the human race is out of control. It's like no one gives a damn about who they hurt or what damage they do.

Man...I have to stop here. I'm getting ready to go off on a RANT. LOL.... Sorry :) I'll go away now.

Barry - What you blogged about is huge. Each day more and more people get turned on to blogging - and if we don't do our job and come up with some "guidelines" - some way to teach bloggers that what they post goes out for the world to see - blogging could turn into something very negative.

The internet has given every Tom Dick and Harry their own private printing press via a laptop. It empowered the masses but blurs the distinction between truth and fiction.

Media companies and journalist have a responsibility. They are professionals. Facts are checked sources are checked. Sources can be anonymous, remember "Deep Throat"

Anonymous bloggers or commenters on the internet should be taken for what they are.

With Free speech comes good and bad. The good out weighs the bad. The problem is the audience of today doesn't distinguish between a credentialed journalist or a 12 year old with a lap top. There lies the problem they can't even distinguish between news and entertainment reality or fiction.

Libel is serious. People think they can hide anonymously on the internet and defame another's character or a company's reputation. That is not OK.

The truth is so easily distorted by those who have their own agenda. We've seen it on ActiveRain, and it happens "out there."

Hey we see it from the White House.

Don't get me started, Mitchell ;->

Barry,

I agree with your comments completely. A good newspaper should value their reputation more. We are in a changing society. I believe you should take responsibility for your actions and words. "A Man that will for something; will fall for anything!"

Blogging is a new experience for many. In fact, it is, for many, the very first time in their lifetime that they, as individuals have had a voice. I believe that giving a public forum or VOICE, if you will, to the many, many citizens who could only collectively speak in the election booth is, will benefit us all in the end. Sure there are things that shouldn't be written. We've all read them. But, no doubt they were statements or expressions of thought that were made in private or to friends and relatives, just not to a forum available to the public. Enter the blog. Now EVERYONE has a voice.

For many, the lack of an outlet for opinion and contribution represented a powerlessness that lead to giving too much power to the insiders and none to those affected by the decisions of the insiders.

For the insiders with the power to make life altering decisions that affect the previously silent, there is now public accountability for actions taken.

It will all come together. IMO, we're far better off with the occassional slander or libel than we were with the simmering silent majorities.

Nice article. Thanks.

Lenn

I definately agree, that those on AR who are Realtors should restrain from any libel or slander -- it is part of the code and hopefully, part of everyone's own code -- however, that is expressed. I was at a strategic planning meeting for my Board this morning -- and we were sent out to do an environmental scan -- I was shocked at some of the things that I heard. We should expose any conduct which is not becoming in an appropriate fashion if the situation warrants. It does not serve our profession to commit libel and slander.

Joan

Thank you to everyone for some great commentary. I am really glad to hear some of the voices here on AR speak about "right and wrong"

Due to my profession, I've always been in a marketing or networking role where I had the ability to send a massive message out to people. Unlike many people in my field, I found myself often asking if there was a moral or ethical message being sent by my words.

In serious cases, I've seen things taken to court. However the worse mistakes of blogging are not taken to court... they are taken to heart.

However the worse mistakes of blogging are not taken to court... they are taken to heart.

I love that, Barry. It is so true.

Unfortunately, we live in a world of cowards, and people have no sense of ownership, even of their own words and actions. I don't think there is a way to stop this behavior without deminishing our amendment rights. I agree with you 100% and the right thing to do is what you are doing now, and that is be the advocate for the rest of the responsible minority. Good job!

Barry,

I thoroughly enjoyed your thought provoking post. Recent stories of fabrication in the media or failure to thoroughly check stories make this a problem throughout all avenues of the media and in today's instant news market. Hopefully, media outlets will hear from you and others about the potential abuses and problems.

The publication you're talking about is actually the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, not the Seattle Times.

LoL, so it is. I corrected those links.

I stand corrected.

Too many days of typing the Seattle Times. Sometimes branding can be a disadvantage too. ;)

I've said it many times before - Who you are speaks louder than words. It continues to amaze me that many people have no clue how others perceive them. What you put your name on or associate with reveals part of your character (or lack thereof).

There are situations where anonymity is appropriate, but mostly it seems it is used by people of little character and integrity.

Barry, thanks for a thought provoking and well written post. I love the way you express yourself. It's a sad commentary on our society that this is happening but I guess that just comes with the territory. Let's hope there will always be folks such as yourself keeping watch and doing something.

Mama always said if you can't say something nice... keep your mouth shut.. There are many ways to get your thoughts across without crossing the line of civility. As others have noted it seems that whenever a site allows anonymous commenting it can get pretty nasty.. whether you hide behind a sheet or a fake name you have no character if you won't stand up in public ,in front of one and all, with your real identity when stating your opinion.

Barry,

You make some very good arguments - the flip side is that the beauty pf the internet in the anonymous nature of it - however I agree there has to be check points and rand hatred cannot be allowed or tolerated. When it comes to media reporting comments, even if they choose to keep their sources secret, they still have to know that the information is correct.

Now Have a Blessed Day,

John Occhi, Hemet CA REALTOR
http://www.johnocchi.com/

The corruption seems to come at us at such a fast pace. The internet will become the worst enemy at some point- most likely with the next generation that uses anonymity as a blanket policy for interacting on the web. The schoolyard bullying is nothing compared to the slander that seeps in to the many facets of the internet...it is what sells the papers and magazines. Smut.

The television media is another source that is so worried about beating the competition they often rely on sources that are not credible. It is like the media is now the jury and their lean on things out weighs the judicial system...I am like TLW- dont get me going---great provoking post!

Barry,

I guess I keep it real simple...for me I wouldn't write anything in a blog that I wouldn't say in person. Either about a person or an opinion about something...doesn't matter...if I write it about you...I'll say it to your face.

Great post Barry!

Great job, Barry. Really enjoyed this thoughtful post. The Internet, because of the anonymity, makes is so easy, and even encourages folks to say whatever they want without fear of repercussion. I suspect we will be seeing more legal action in the future, and perhaps more safeguards. I agree with Monika's points, among others. Tough issues.

Jeff

Barry: Excellent article. I can understand a reporter protecting sources, but every effort must be made at substantiating a story.

If in doubt, cut it out.

Nice picture Barry, I seen the article regarding HouseValues but ddin't see the one regarding Jobster. I did a piece on the PI, Real Estate Licensing, and one of the commentors pointed out the HouseValues article. As I read through it I was astonished by what I was reading, from a professional standpoint and personal.

The commenting cowards, as I like to call them, usually bring no good to conversations just distasteful opinions, IMO. The unregulated comments I didn't think could happen because it requires people to register to make comments. IMO, the forum has been opened by allowing the blogger to blog such topics.

When I was asked to do it I had to actually sign forms adhering to certain guidelines, maybe that is just me. Creating a controversy is a good tactic to entice readership but it has to be done within some boundaries otherwise the intergrity of the site itself can become jeopardized.

Barry, I never really give this much thought. Partly because I can't imagine not being up for sharing my thoughts under my own name. But it's also partly because I make an assumption that the truth is always it's own defense. That lies ultimately come to light and that the transparency provided by the free flow of information in the blogosphere is worth the sporadic pain of those who have no real courage, just courage.com.

I feel the pain of the companies you list. I do. There are easy ways to get to those who are truly slanderous and liable. Every website has the ability to capture IP addresses. AR shows the IP address in emails we send to each other. Someone who really wants to hide certainly can, but the average Joe who comments in hateful and slanderous tones is not thinking about masking their IP address before they open their virtual mouths. Capturing the IP addresses and depositing them in the comment would allow for proper action if necessary.

JAN

2007

Its just an unfortunate byproduct of the web. People hide behind anonimity because they are cowards to own up to the things they say. -Charles

Good points from everyone. I really do appreciate that there are so many minds here that have the ability to see some of the bigger picture.

Michele- The corruption may be happening at an incredible pace. Sometimes the speed is almost impossible to measure. I don't know how many times I fail to keep up with how technology is changing social interaction. I just hope that enough of us are out there that we manage to keep someone decently sane in the driver's seat.

Toby- I guess he main aspect of what "urks" me is that a big media name condones such writing. If someone came along and wrote that on a bulletin board at a business I worked at- it would be removed. I hope that more quality writers find a niche to write about on major sites, as having a voice online is equal parts integrity, insight, and creativity.

Jeff T- While IP adresses could be tracked and monitored... the problem is far more instant. In the same aspect of a real world bulletin board in the break room, I could pull down a note and have someone fingerprint it. However the damage is done when people see it and action is taken. I take a lot of responsibility in this type of topic since I am a father and I want my son to understand that inaction can often be as damaging as the original offense.

I wonder a times if the journalistic nature of good news media is being threatened too often by the need to sell advertising. I know it has been a conflict of interest for years... but it seems that more print publishers are going to be challenged by the aspect of "Reality TV" and we will be seeing a version of "Reality Newspaper" over the next year.

I don't know why anyone would bash someone they don't know or have never met. You can not judge a person unless you are willing to be judged first. We are all humans and we make mistakes. It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you have, it happens

FEB

2007

Hi Barry,

I have to disagree with you on this one. The decision to allow anonymous comments or not, remains with the each respective blog host. The decision to allow them or not has little to do with the First Amendment. (Though I might point out anonymous publishing was all the rave in the days of our founding fathers).

Personally, I do not post anonymous comments or allow them on my blog (mostly because I was tired of deleting spam ads). On the flip side, I do not monitor the posts. But on rare occasion, I have to edit or repost.

However, in some cases, like the Seattle PI, I think its great they allow anonymous comments because I frequently see posts made by employees of companies that John Cook writes about (they want to comment, but not lose their jobs). Sure, some are fakes, posting as former employees, but many are not. Overall, sometimes, in cases of credibility, I see an anonymous posters write something worthwhile ... while people who leave their names appear less credible. Certainly there are times when the anonymous posting is absurd, but it's easy enough to ignore those.

Anyway, while I may disagree with the idea, I love the discussion. Well done. Bravo. I've been meaning to write about this subject sometime and will certainly include your post as an excellent reference.

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?