I have commented anonymously on several stories about a local official. None of my comments were tagged by the editors as libel and I have had none deleted. The local Gannett paper is [XXXXXXX XXXXXXX]. Today, I received a letter from the official saying that he learned of my identity from "people who review these comments." He is now threatening legal action and has sent copies of the letter to all the local high ranking officials. Quite disconcerting, to say the least. My question is what is the Gannett policy about voluntarily releasing the anonymous online names to local officials who have been criticized by citizens? Any input would be greatly appreciated.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 rail, upper right.
Terms of service on our site - which I'm guessing are universal across Gannett - say this:
ReplyDelete"... you grant us, and anyone authorized by us, the right to identify you as the author of any of your postings or submissions by name, email address or screen name, as we deem appropriate."
Anyone who posts, therefore, risks losing their anonymity. Makes sense from a legal standpoint that sites should not offer blanket anonymity to anyone.
Now, whether that means that people should have their names passed on to others for libel/lawsuit reasons is a good ethical question worthy of discussion.
But, legally, the bottom line is: If people don't like the rules, they should find somewhere else to post.
Oh, one last point: How does this reader know the release of his/her info was "voluntary" on the newspaper's part?
ReplyDeleteCould have been demanded through a court order or suchlike.
This guy sounds like one of the nutcases/gadflies we have who loves to create multiple usernames so he can sling crap at the mayor. Sometimes he used to even debate himself on our forums, to make it seem like there was a groundswell of support in his favor.
Boilerplate terms of service across Gannett says user is responsible for all his/her posts and that the paper can disclose your identity to anyone for any reason, like when a local politico gets his undies in bunches and emails the editor and/or publisher who doesn't know the difference between a source, a tweet, a blog or a forum post. She only knows the bottom line and that advertising sucks right now. They'll give up your user information in a hurry. Read the terms of service section "responsibility for user-provided content" on any Gannett site.
ReplyDeleteWell, there you go.
ReplyDeleteWe feel so powerful when we can post without the accountability of leaving our name.
Just got a little carried away, did you? There's a reason that, as an editorial page editor, I had to kill some of the best letters to the editor because I could not verify authorship. Without the true name attached, the letter couldn't be published.
There's also a reason that Gannett newspapers get all that information when you register to join their "community."
The newspapers don't want to take responsibility for the often cruel, gross and often slanderous comments connected to the stories.
You are not safe, anonymous.
P.S. At the papers I worked for, it was clear that if I posted a comment online without identifying myself, it was a firing offense.
When my entire newsroom started calling me by my screen name, I stopped commenting.
ReplyDeleteHere I was, a schmuck in advertising, improving their product with humor and insight - I had a following. People watched for my handle. And although I defended the writing from the great unwashed, I also poked at stories where the editing had left huge holes or the writer was simply wrong.
But the one place I wanted to be anonymous was in my own building. When the big mouth who handled comments looked up my handle and yahoo account, the word went out.
Since then I created a new name. I don't comment much, because I'm still pissed. But this name is tied to a new gmail account, that I access using wifi at Starbucks. And when I do comment, I'm brutal.
Hell hath no fury.
The local official must have threatened the paper with legal action for them to fork over the ID of the person.
ReplyDeleteWord verification: voyar
Did you register using your real name? If not, then maybe your comments have inadvertently identified you and he's fishing?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, if the newspaper shared take them on. Anonymity feeds these sites, exposing the authors will slow that and the ad dollars that supports it if your story becomes known.
And, unless you're a public official his actions may have harmed you. Plus, if you didn’t share libelous info, then I'd expose the local official’s actions too and I'd use the newspaper's help to do it.
If you comment on a company owned computer then you must assume that big brother is watching...don't forget they own the computer, the phone and everything else...you must use outside equipment not tied to the company (this includes cell phones) to maintain your privacy...anyone working in the business world shoudl know this.
ReplyDeleteTerms of Service agreements are likely only as good as the lawyers that newspapers may need to engage to defend them. And, given the dissenting professional opinions that I’ve received over the years (including from various lawyers) regarding the operation and usage of reader comments, even more so.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a sad truth about modern Western society. So many people are full of such anger, bias, hatred, etc. and choose vent online. But if forced to identify themselves first, they clam up. I have no problem with anonymous posts if they are not inflamatory. But if you've got the guts to make an extreme or incendiary statement, then have the guts to identify yourself. You can't shout "Fire!" in front of a nursing home and then run away. If that happened, witnesses would chase down and flog the guilty party. But sadly, we tolerate such behavior online. Why?
ReplyDelete7:01 AM:
ReplyDeleteSo, are you still a schmuck in advertising?
515 AM says, This guy sounds like one of the nutcases/gadflies we have who loves to create multiple usernames so he can sling crap at the mayor. Sometimes he used to even debate himself on our forums, to make it seem like there was a groundswell of support in his favor. ..
ReplyDeleteYou may be guessing some "nut" is doing this, but even moderators don't know that. Pluck/Gannett doesn't record IP addresses, so all any editor has to go on is the email address that existed at the time the account was created ... and the account exists even if that gmail, yahoo, hotmail, etc. account is abandoned after the account is validated.
As a moderator, I can't tell you how many times I've seen paranoid people accusing others of having multiple logon names or of "arguing with themselves," but the patterns we see show the allegation is usually very unlikely.
Is this poster daft?
ReplyDeleteNo one savvy to the Internet uses his real name or permanent email address when creating anonymous or pen-name profiles at any site.
That's just Social Networking 101.
Is this poster daft?
ReplyDeleteNo one savvy to the Internet uses his real name or permanent email address when creating anonymous or pen-name profiles at any site.
That's just Social Networking 101.
Libel is nearly impossible to prove. Tell the guy its part of the freaking job of being in public office. If he can't take the heat tell him to get lost. What a freaking baby.
ReplyDeleteTell me George Bush wasn't called 10x worse every freaking day during his presidency.
The most important point is whether your info or comments were true, if they were tell him to stick it. If they are not or questionable tell him still to stick it and quit being a baby.
The comment name was anonymous. The local paper published a statement today that announced their policy on comment language and content. It stated that anything deemed inappropriate by the staff would be stricken (ie. cursing, potential libel, etc.) and that the commenter would be contacted. In this case, the person making the comments online was never contacted, censored, or banned by the paper. Rather, they gave up real name of the person to a powerful local official - who is now extracting revenge for rather benign comments.
ReplyDeleteOk, who in the hell uses their real name and real email to post on the forums? Not I! It's so simple to create a one use email account on gmail or yahoo.
ReplyDelete3:05 PM wrote: "You may be guessing some "nut" is doing this, but even moderators don't know that."
ReplyDeleteYou definitely can tell when the issues raised against the same public official are exactly the same using the same language and writing style.
Trust me, you get to know the "regulars" pretty well on our site.
3:05 PM also wrote:
"As a moderator, I can't tell you how many times I've seen paranoid people accusing others of having multiple logon names or of "arguing with themselves," but the patterns we see show the allegation is usually very unlikely."
As a fortune cookie I once got said: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Fyi - every IP address that accesses a Gannett website is logged and tracked. Cookies are also placed on every PC.
ReplyDeleteEmployees in the newspapers don't have access to this data, but I know for a fact that it exists and is stored for a certain amount of time.
It will be provided to law enforcement with a warrant, but that's it.
This is different than the situation of giving out a username.