You're demonstrating amazing participation in the recently launched Jersey Confidential forums -- once more showing the rest of Gannett how it's done! Now, here's a new challenge: You're all posting very New Jersey-specific news and comments, exactly what I hoped for. That means more posts, including more people identified by name and title.Here are my guidelines: I scrutinize every comment that includes names, titles or other identifying information, with the goal of removing it -- unless I can find compelling reasons to do otherwise. This isn't a new rule, or one just for Jersey Confidential posters.
This has always been my rule. But now, as the number of comments often exceeds 200 a day, I'm applying it more frequently. I acknowledge in advance that we won't always agree on my calls. In the end, however, my goal is to build an even more professional Gannett Blog.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
[Image: satellite photo of New Jersey, Google Earth]
Interesting. I never realized your goal was to delete comments unless there was a compelling reason to leave them.
ReplyDeleteSo even if we post something that we know to be the truth, something we personally experienced, such as pressure (subtle or not so subtle) aimed at influencing our responses during an investigation of certain people in at a certain paper, there's a good chance it will be deleted?
I posted just such an item, naming names, from my personal experience, and granted I was rather strident in some of the comments I made, but nonetheless, it was my personal experience. I knew exactly what the goal of the messages I was receiving was, and that was to deter people from telling the truth. Sadly, the atmosphere of fear was so high that it succeeded in silencing a lot of good, honest people in a situation where they really could have changed their circumstances by speaking the truth.
5:58 pm: You may have misread what I wrote. To repeat: anytime I see a comment that includes "names, titles or other identifying information,'' I'm going to scrutinize it extra carefully. That's plain old journalism 101.
ReplyDeleteJim, I think I understand your purpose, but I'm not sure you articulated your intended boundaries as well as you might have on a slower news day.
ReplyDeleteToday, perhaps, was not the best day to take this particular bull by the horns.
Hang in there, 5:58 PM. You don't say whether your post was deleted, but if it was, you might want to restate it on the record, although in blog format that, too, presents issues, because anyone can pretend to be any real person.
Court challenges I've seen on libel in online comments have resulted in the assumption all anon posts are opinion.
7:29, you're wrong. There is never any assumption that all anonymous posts are "opinion." It is true that the host newspaper, blog or website usually is immune from being sued for posts by others. But the posters are not immune. As we know from past incidents on this blog, it is possible to find out who made a particular post (not easy, but possible). Libel suits happen in the virtual world just like the brick-and-mortar world, so be careful when naming names (or giving so many details that identities will be known). Jim might have immunity, but posters on this blog don't.
ReplyDelete