Commentary

When Graffiti Replaces Discourse

With a hardy "as long as we can hit a high standard and have no risk of vandalism, then it is worth having a try at it again;" and a "Hi-Oh-Silver!" Rob Barrett, the Los Angeles Times Interactive general manager, drove a stake through the heart of the paper's ill-conceived two-day experiment having online readers add their two cents to a newspaper editorial. As the world knows by now, the mirthful readers of LATimes.com thought profanity and pornographic pix were appropriate contributions to an editorial about the Iraq war.

"Readers took things in an unforeseeable way," Deputy Editorial Page Editor Michael Newman told Editor and Publisher.

Acknowledging that hindsight is a good deal more refined than foresight, is there a breathing soul among us who could not have predicted that any position on the Iraq war would have prompted extreme reaction? Hey, why not launch with a position on abortion or gay marriage, or if illegal immigrants in Southern California should get free state-provided medical benefits? While it is a little premature to compare Iraq to Vietnam, the polarizing effect on public opinion is just short of the Tet offensive.

I'm confident that the editors who thought up this wikitorial experiment wanted to start with something that would provoke reaction. Well, they got it, and from 1,000 registered contributors--some of whose lexicon was apparently at odds with the prevailing community LA standard of decency. Which, given what passes for PG-13 in that town, is something of a surprise.

The Internet is still a largely untamed environment where nearly anything (well, where almost everything) goes. It is seen by hackers as a public playground where they can run around with abandon, regardless of the toddlers in the sandbox and old people on the benches. The anonymity empowers otherwise ordinary citizenry to collect porn, entrap unsuspecting teens, pose as gender opposites in chat rooms, and deface earnest attempts at public discourse.

One wonders if the LAT problem was the result of the subject matter or the fact that it was hosted by the Great Corporate Establishment Press? I suspect, a little of both. There is also the demented satisfaction some people get out of seeing their graffiti in a highly visible public place. And frankly, I am surprised it doesn't happen online more often.

Other than have someone real-time monitor what is being posted, I foresee no end to this problem. Other than perhaps requiring full (verified by the host) disclosure of name, address, and phone number. This will surely cut down on the participation and take away that "anything goes, because I am anonymous" thrill--but in the end, might right the ship enough to set a new, more successful course.

Next story loading loading..