From the editor: Keep it clean
Stamford Advocate
By David Y. Warner
Civil discourse.
That's a concept very much on the minds of many editors at The Advocate and Greenwich Time these days because of reader comments on several stories on our Web sites.
Actually, it's on the minds of many editors around the country, a source of regular professional conversation.
Let's get a few things straight before we go much further here: We believe in the First Amendment. We believe in free speech. We believe that community conversations are vital to the health and welfare of our towns and cities. We believe that the Web is a vital part of that conversation.
Having said that, we're just not going to allow abusive, profane and crude postings in the reader comments section on our Web sites. I read those comments regularly, and generally enjoy them. That's the case even when those who post disagree with what the papers have done, or disagree with our editorials, or happily denounce us as remnants of a discredited political philosophy.
Frankly, I'm encouraged by the passion of those comments. It's a good thing for all of us that there is disagreement, sometimes argument, sometimes phrased strongly.
In the past several days, however, we have removed from the sites several different types of comments from the comment section. You should know generally what's been pulled off the sites, and why.
Base and course language: It's true that many people use vulgar language in their conversation. I plead guilty to that on occasion myself. But we are simply not going to allow ...
...On occasion, readers have sent me personal e-mails to let me know. Thanks for that.
Now, you might ask, is some of this subjective judgment on our part, about what's acceptable and what's not? Yes. Not all curse words are created equal for instance. My advice: Don't use any of them. In fact, don't say anything in reader comments you wouldn't say to your mother at dinner.
Some of you, I sense, are emboldened because your comments are anonymous, carrying only the screen names you've chosen. Even then, however, we reserve the option of not only pulling an offending comment from the site, but of banning a user from posting again. It's not something we would do lightly. But we're willing to do it so that the vast majority of you who play nice....
But David Warner is probably not aware of the Greenwich Times long history of censorship in town.....
Please read:
Stamford Advocate Website Steps Up Web Media, Bans StationStops.com From Comments (?)
...However, the story about the Beating and Robbery At Riverside Walgreens still does not have the security cam photos (we have them here).
This last story is especially unfortunate, as the sister of the victim in the case specifically commented on the article on their website, asking why Greenwich Time had not included the pictures.
Previously, I had commented on these stories on the Stamford Advocate website and let their confused readers know that I had the images discussed on my website. However, my comments seem to not be appearing on the Stamford Advocate website anymore ....
05/06/08 - Did You Know That Greenwich Gossip Webmaster Bill Clark Had Been Banned By The "Yellowich Time"
......An ostrich with its head deep-buried in the sand would have been an apt image of Yellowwich Time. There was a rumor circulating for many years that the paper was published in the basement of Town Hall, so that all the bent or incompetent politicians could censor everything before it was printed. And woe betide anyone who dared to question the status quo or rock the boat in Town; all the blunderbusses of the illiterate reporting and editorial staffs would be leveled at him or her in a effort to belittle, discredit, and smear the offender. In this town in those days it was lockstep or nothing.
Which is why your scribe once told Bill Rowe, the then-owner of the rag, that the paper should change its masthead color from green to yellow. Why, he wanted to know? So that it would reflect the color of the journalism you publish, replied your scribe. Rowe walked off in a huff; and from that day forward the Local Rag has adamantly refused to publish anything written by your scribe - who had thitherto been one of the more popular letter writers in Town......
And There Are Many Many More Instances.
However, If Greenwich residents would like to comment about local issues they can do it with out the heavy hand of David Warner here....
Talk about Greenwich, CT
================================================================
Please send your comments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com all profane comments will be cheerfully forwarded to dwarner@scni.com .
Stamford Advocate
By David Y. Warner
Civil discourse.
That's a concept very much on the minds of many editors at The Advocate and Greenwich Time these days because of reader comments on several stories on our Web sites.
Actually, it's on the minds of many editors around the country, a source of regular professional conversation.
Let's get a few things straight before we go much further here: We believe in the First Amendment. We believe in free speech. We believe that community conversations are vital to the health and welfare of our towns and cities. We believe that the Web is a vital part of that conversation.
Having said that, we're just not going to allow abusive, profane and crude postings in the reader comments section on our Web sites. I read those comments regularly, and generally enjoy them. That's the case even when those who post disagree with what the papers have done, or disagree with our editorials, or happily denounce us as remnants of a discredited political philosophy.
Frankly, I'm encouraged by the passion of those comments. It's a good thing for all of us that there is disagreement, sometimes argument, sometimes phrased strongly.
In the past several days, however, we have removed from the sites several different types of comments from the comment section. You should know generally what's been pulled off the sites, and why.
Base and course language: It's true that many people use vulgar language in their conversation. I plead guilty to that on occasion myself. But we are simply not going to allow ...
...On occasion, readers have sent me personal e-mails to let me know. Thanks for that.
Now, you might ask, is some of this subjective judgment on our part, about what's acceptable and what's not? Yes. Not all curse words are created equal for instance. My advice: Don't use any of them. In fact, don't say anything in reader comments you wouldn't say to your mother at dinner.
Some of you, I sense, are emboldened because your comments are anonymous, carrying only the screen names you've chosen. Even then, however, we reserve the option of not only pulling an offending comment from the site, but of banning a user from posting again. It's not something we would do lightly. But we're willing to do it so that the vast majority of you who play nice....
But David Warner is probably not aware of the Greenwich Times long history of censorship in town.....
Please read:
Stamford Advocate Website Steps Up Web Media, Bans StationStops.com From Comments (?)
...However, the story about the Beating and Robbery At Riverside Walgreens still does not have the security cam photos (we have them here).
This last story is especially unfortunate, as the sister of the victim in the case specifically commented on the article on their website, asking why Greenwich Time had not included the pictures.
Previously, I had commented on these stories on the Stamford Advocate website and let their confused readers know that I had the images discussed on my website. However, my comments seem to not be appearing on the Stamford Advocate website anymore ....
05/06/08 - Did You Know That Greenwich Gossip Webmaster Bill Clark Had Been Banned By The "Yellowich Time"
......An ostrich with its head deep-buried in the sand would have been an apt image of Yellowwich Time. There was a rumor circulating for many years that the paper was published in the basement of Town Hall, so that all the bent or incompetent politicians could censor everything before it was printed. And woe betide anyone who dared to question the status quo or rock the boat in Town; all the blunderbusses of the illiterate reporting and editorial staffs would be leveled at him or her in a effort to belittle, discredit, and smear the offender. In this town in those days it was lockstep or nothing.
Which is why your scribe once told Bill Rowe, the then-owner of the rag, that the paper should change its masthead color from green to yellow. Why, he wanted to know? So that it would reflect the color of the journalism you publish, replied your scribe. Rowe walked off in a huff; and from that day forward the Local Rag has adamantly refused to publish anything written by your scribe - who had thitherto been one of the more popular letter writers in Town......
And There Are Many Many More Instances.
However, If Greenwich residents would like to comment about local issues they can do it with out the heavy hand of David Warner here....
Talk about Greenwich, CT
================================================================
Please send your comments to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com all profane comments will be cheerfully forwarded to dwarner@scni.com .
No comments:
Post a Comment