By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 22:00
Even privately held companies have websites - especially "Media" companies. So how about some links to photos that you have taken that have been used by news orgs, businesses, private publications, etc? When I write something for a company I can usually provide a link. You cannot pretend to be something you are not, assume the prestige and authority of that position (ie, a journalist), and then make comments based on all of this. Well, you can, but you will be called on it.
I haven't been to the Facebook page yet but what are the odds that the majority of the people are from Maine? I am at a slow public connection right now but when I get home I will check. Maybe I will spend some of my banked time on a couple databases I subscribe to and do some in-depth reporting on NCR Media. So far my public searches, including searches for DBA certificates and corporate filings are coming up with nothing.
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 21:04
And the people who label you and others as such have very little grasp of the things they loudly proclaim to know so much about. You are being true to yourself and, from where I stand, that is most important.
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 19:31
Will someone PLEASE start an organization to ban Stiletto Heels! How long before kids start walking around with their pants to their knees while wearing stiletto heels?
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 18:06
I will miss being able to comment. I have had two very kind people call and ask that I relent since I have my name public anyhow. I wish I could.
600 verified members should provide the SJ with a good nucleus and a variety of opinions to keep things interesting. I attended a seminar last year where "reigning in" commentary was a side-topic brought up after an editor from a mid-western newspaper described the horror stories he encountered while trying to implement a comment system. The SJ has had noting but angels compared to this man. As newspapers evolve to the next stage places like the SJ will try numerous approaches until they find something that strikes a good balance. There is nothing nefarious about what the SJ is doing. I can only begin to imagine the nightmares Rex and his staff have while trying to find a business model that ensures profits and the continuing legacy of the Sun Journal. As an interested observer of the press as a whole I am pulling for them to be successful.
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 17:37
Just FYI, There is no Yellow or white page listing for NCR Media in Washington D. C. My guess is that it is just a mail drop.
What irked me about your post is that you assert some kind of special insight to the collection of news and current events that your lack of facility with language and your name-dropping caused me to wonder.
In your comments you simply dismissed people who wish to remain anonymous by saying: "I leave it with this, if you want to run and hide behind a system that protects you your not ready to be a citizen and stand up for your beliefs, you just want to hid and be a nuisance, you dont belong here. People who want to fight should do so diplomatically but maybe that wont happen either." I find that very petty and condescending in a post that failed to address any of the reasons people gave for wanting to remain anonymous. Can you, will you address anything that has been posted here? Or will you just simply wait out my time here on the SJ site and let meaningful and uncomfortable inquiries pass unanswered?
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 17:11
Could you tell us more about NCR Media? You use it as a form of credential. Invoking "NCR Media out of Washington DC" to give what you say gravitas is OK but could we learn more about NCR Media? Can you direct us to its website? I did a quick search and found very little. Maybe I am simply unskilled at these things.
And since you are a professional paid journalist could we see some links to some of your work? Again, you make your status a central part of your complaints with people who are not verified here at the SJ.
Did you read my objections to this new system? What do you think of them? Where am I wrong? Could we have some of that "intelligent" conversation that you so long for now or does my asking for information somehow lower this particular conversation?
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 14:07
People saw movies like "West-Side Story" and immediately went into a panic and banned switchblades. I am sure that that law has prevented innumerable crimes.
By JohnBerry, unverified — Mon, 01/31/2011 - 13:40
As you may have suspected I have always posted using my real name. It is a matter of principle. Among other things it keeps me from giving in to the occasional temptation to abuse someone who irks me (not that I would, but..). That type of thing never leads to anything good. But mostly I believe that I should stand behind what I say in a public forum and part of that means putting my name on what I write.
That said, I also believe that there are very important reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. It would be very easy for the SJ to accomplish their goals while still allowing people to post anonymously. The people who have registered multiple accounts would be stopped and those who are banned for violations of the terms of service would really be banned. The SJ would have their real names and contact information and that would be what would prevent abuses.
Rex has written that the 600 people who have applied for verification are "confirming, in more ways than one, that we are doing the right thing." Really they are simply confirming that they want to continue being able to post comments. But all of the problems he listed about anonymous posting can be solved without requiring that people use their real names. And no one has addressed my comments or concerns about the new system. Since this Editorial and comment thread is on this topic I will restate my objections and concerns. Above all else I want to say that the Sun Journal has every right to impose whatever requirements they like for the use of their website. Will they continue to have people commenting? Undoubtedly. Will they change the tenor and tone of the conversations? Will they eliminate people who imply or assert that others are Nazi's or klansmen? Barring actually banning people (for life), which can be done under the system I propose, I doubt it.
I have written in the past that I am conflicted about the SJ rule that people have their identity verified and that their real names be used publicly. I have always used my real name. But I will not be getting "verified" because I think that being forced to use your real name in online political discussion can be dangerous for some people. Will remove the level ground that we can now debate freely on. Plus it will add an element to debates which has been absent from most until now: personal information.
How will it be dangerous? Sadly we live in a world where many of the moral constraints of the past are all but gone. In my own lifetime political debate has gone from having some degree of respect for the well thought out and deeply held beliefs to the insinuation and outright claim that people with differing positions are morally deficient, evil, traitors, Nazis, haters of our nation and our freedoms. And those are just the tip of the sad iceberg.
As we have debated issues on the SJ website over the last few years we have seen people who have been over the top in their rhetoric and who have displayed what can be described as a short fuse. Armed with the name of the "traitor" who "hates America" how long will it be before some of these debates spill over into public confrontations in the grocery store, at a little league game, or in the dark of the night when a short fuse burns down and a rock is thrown, a car is vandalized, or someone is assaulted?
How will it remove the level playing field? Right now we carry on debates with people we know only by what they write and chose to reveal. The person with the Doctorate can debate the high school drop-out without assuming or asserting that his advanced degree gives him knowledge that trumps the high school drop-out.
And how will what you say here effect your job? Maybe your boss is on the other side of the political spectrum from you. Maybe you are for Gay rights and he is against. Will you feel free to express your opinion? Does anyone see that this policy could have a chilling effect on the conversations and debates?
The debates will now become places where personal information can be used to distort, mock, degrade, injure and drive people from the conversations here at the SJ. Your kid gets arrested, you get a divorce, your teen-aged daughter is pregnant, you filed for bankruptcy, you live in poorer part of town. All of these and more become fodder for the cruel assaults we have already witnessed here on the SJ site.
But this is the way the SJ has decided to proceed. I believe that they can accomplish their goals without making peoples real-names public. I believe that they can do this easily and that it would enhance the quality of debate on this site. I will spare you the details of how I think the SJ should proceed.
Making my name public is my choice. I did it with some thought and knew what I was getting into. I have received calls from people who have both agreed with me and disagreed with me. I got a call this week from someone who is starting a website in response to this policy. But that is because of my choice. And the SJ should allow for choice for all.
Ya, Right...
Even privately held companies have websites - especially "Media" companies. So how about some links to photos that you have taken that have been used by news orgs, businesses, private publications, etc? When I write something for a company I can usually provide a link. You cannot pretend to be something you are not, assume the prestige and authority of that position (ie, a journalist), and then make comments based on all of this. Well, you can, but you will be called on it.
I haven't been to the Facebook page yet but what are the odds that the majority of the people are from Maine? I am at a slow public connection right now but when I get home I will check. Maybe I will spend some of my banked time on a couple databases I subscribe to and do some in-depth reporting on NCR Media. So far my public searches, including searches for DBA certificates and corporate filings are coming up with nothing.
Got to go, wife is tapping her toe...
You Are Not A Sheep
And the people who label you and others as such have very little grasp of the things they loudly proclaim to know so much about. You are being true to yourself and, from where I stand, that is most important.
Ouch!
Will someone PLEASE start an organization to ban Stiletto Heels! How long before kids start walking around with their pants to their knees while wearing stiletto heels?
Or Your City If You Don't Live In A Sity
Or Your City If You Don't Live In A Sity. It is my fingers, they are to blame...
No
Just your Name and Sity, State
Thanks
I will miss being able to comment. I have had two very kind people call and ask that I relent since I have my name public anyhow. I wish I could.
600 verified members should provide the SJ with a good nucleus and a variety of opinions to keep things interesting. I attended a seminar last year where "reigning in" commentary was a side-topic brought up after an editor from a mid-western newspaper described the horror stories he encountered while trying to implement a comment system. The SJ has had noting but angels compared to this man. As newspapers evolve to the next stage places like the SJ will try numerous approaches until they find something that strikes a good balance. There is nothing nefarious about what the SJ is doing. I can only begin to imagine the nightmares Rex and his staff have while trying to find a business model that ensures profits and the continuing legacy of the Sun Journal. As an interested observer of the press as a whole I am pulling for them to be successful.
NCR Media, Part 2
Just FYI, There is no Yellow or white page listing for NCR Media in Washington D. C. My guess is that it is just a mail drop.
What irked me about your post is that you assert some kind of special insight to the collection of news and current events that your lack of facility with language and your name-dropping caused me to wonder.
In your comments you simply dismissed people who wish to remain anonymous by saying: "I leave it with this, if you want to run and hide behind a system that protects you your not ready to be a citizen and stand up for your beliefs, you just want to hid and be a nuisance, you dont belong here. People who want to fight should do so diplomatically but maybe that wont happen either." I find that very petty and condescending in a post that failed to address any of the reasons people gave for wanting to remain anonymous. Can you, will you address anything that has been posted here? Or will you just simply wait out my time here on the SJ site and let meaningful and uncomfortable inquiries pass unanswered?
NCR Media
Could you tell us more about NCR Media? You use it as a form of credential. Invoking "NCR Media out of Washington DC" to give what you say gravitas is OK but could we learn more about NCR Media? Can you direct us to its website? I did a quick search and found very little. Maybe I am simply unskilled at these things.
And since you are a professional paid journalist could we see some links to some of your work? Again, you make your status a central part of your complaints with people who are not verified here at the SJ.
Did you read my objections to this new system? What do you think of them? Where am I wrong? Could we have some of that "intelligent" conversation that you so long for now or does my asking for information somehow lower this particular conversation?
Stupid Law
People saw movies like "West-Side Story" and immediately went into a panic and banned switchblades. I am sure that that law has prevented innumerable crimes.
As A Matter Of Principle
As you may have suspected I have always posted using my real name. It is a matter of principle. Among other things it keeps me from giving in to the occasional temptation to abuse someone who irks me (not that I would, but..). That type of thing never leads to anything good. But mostly I believe that I should stand behind what I say in a public forum and part of that means putting my name on what I write.
That said, I also believe that there are very important reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. It would be very easy for the SJ to accomplish their goals while still allowing people to post anonymously. The people who have registered multiple accounts would be stopped and those who are banned for violations of the terms of service would really be banned. The SJ would have their real names and contact information and that would be what would prevent abuses.
Rex has written that the 600 people who have applied for verification are "confirming, in more ways than one, that we are doing the right thing." Really they are simply confirming that they want to continue being able to post comments. But all of the problems he listed about anonymous posting can be solved without requiring that people use their real names. And no one has addressed my comments or concerns about the new system. Since this Editorial and comment thread is on this topic I will restate my objections and concerns. Above all else I want to say that the Sun Journal has every right to impose whatever requirements they like for the use of their website. Will they continue to have people commenting? Undoubtedly. Will they change the tenor and tone of the conversations? Will they eliminate people who imply or assert that others are Nazi's or klansmen? Barring actually banning people (for life), which can be done under the system I propose, I doubt it.
I have written in the past that I am conflicted about the SJ rule that people have their identity verified and that their real names be used publicly. I have always used my real name. But I will not be getting "verified" because I think that being forced to use your real name in online political discussion can be dangerous for some people. Will remove the level ground that we can now debate freely on. Plus it will add an element to debates which has been absent from most until now: personal information.
How will it be dangerous? Sadly we live in a world where many of the moral constraints of the past are all but gone. In my own lifetime political debate has gone from having some degree of respect for the well thought out and deeply held beliefs to the insinuation and outright claim that people with differing positions are morally deficient, evil, traitors, Nazis, haters of our nation and our freedoms. And those are just the tip of the sad iceberg.
As we have debated issues on the SJ website over the last few years we have seen people who have been over the top in their rhetoric and who have displayed what can be described as a short fuse. Armed with the name of the "traitor" who "hates America" how long will it be before some of these debates spill over into public confrontations in the grocery store, at a little league game, or in the dark of the night when a short fuse burns down and a rock is thrown, a car is vandalized, or someone is assaulted?
How will it remove the level playing field? Right now we carry on debates with people we know only by what they write and chose to reveal. The person with the Doctorate can debate the high school drop-out without assuming or asserting that his advanced degree gives him knowledge that trumps the high school drop-out.
And how will what you say here effect your job? Maybe your boss is on the other side of the political spectrum from you. Maybe you are for Gay rights and he is against. Will you feel free to express your opinion? Does anyone see that this policy could have a chilling effect on the conversations and debates?
The debates will now become places where personal information can be used to distort, mock, degrade, injure and drive people from the conversations here at the SJ. Your kid gets arrested, you get a divorce, your teen-aged daughter is pregnant, you filed for bankruptcy, you live in poorer part of town. All of these and more become fodder for the cruel assaults we have already witnessed here on the SJ site.
But this is the way the SJ has decided to proceed. I believe that they can accomplish their goals without making peoples real-names public. I believe that they can do this easily and that it would enhance the quality of debate on this site. I will spare you the details of how I think the SJ should proceed.
Making my name public is my choice. I did it with some thought and knew what I was getting into. I have received calls from people who have both agreed with me and disagreed with me. I got a call this week from someone who is starting a website in response to this policy. But that is because of my choice. And the SJ should allow for choice for all.