Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I was very happy to see this feature of printing all letters. (Assuming only a needlessly abusive few are being stricken off the site). It allows knowledgeable readers to
provide knowledge and info in response to an article which was
missing from the article itself. It allows opinionated readers
to opinionate. It allows readers who percieve a one-sided bias
within an article to offer an other-sided bias in hope that it
all averages out to some kind of balanced collection of views
and facts. And if a huge preponderance of letters tend to lean
one way in their opinion of a writer's grasp of facts or subservience to a theory, Salon itself has a chance to look into
it and see if a huge preponderance of letters might be pointing
toward an actual problem with the coverage of a subject.
I hope your new upgrades don't make this fine new feature
harder to access or use in practice.
(Signing with a madeup name is a tradition, as far as I
can see, on blogsites. Some of most scholarly and responsible
letters I have seen are signed.. Clearlymade Upname.
The only reason I use my handle thingy is because your website automatically fills in my Salon premium name, and the only reason I chose that one was because other things were taken. Why, if you want real names, does your letters feature automatically fill in a username?
I remain,
Freddie B. deBoer
"We know that some of you might be thinking, "Gee, when future potential employers are Googling my name, do I really want them to see this rant?" Maybe that's simply good motivation to write something that you'll be proud of. If you think you won't want to stand by your letter years from now, you might reconsider whether you want to post it at all."
My objection to this line of reasoning is the idea that what one is proud of socially, especially in the context of an online community is not neccessarily what one would want to bring into a professional context. For instance, if one were to apply for a job where the person hiring held extremely socially conservative views. While it would be unprofessional in the extreme for them to hold a letter to the editor about my personal views on, for instance, reproductive rights against me, the point is that I don't think that everyone would want potential future employers to have the opportunity to google out their personal views.
Me, personally, I wouldn't want to work for anyone that unprofessional and intollerant, anyways, so, at least at present, I couldn't care less, but your argument seems a little short-sighted to me.
I can understand that Salon wants to avoid the spam, rants and personal attacks that are common on many parts of the web. It's probably easier for someone to post those kinds of things if they can do so anonymously.
But I think there are also good reasons to avoid posting one's real first and last name. I don't always share my political and social views with my co-workers, sometimes with good reasons. I've lived and worked in places where admitting your views might not get you fired, but would definitely make you unwelcome in the lunch room. Therefore, I'm cautious about what I post under my real name (and since I have an uncommon name, I have to be more cautious than someone named John Smith). There are things that I've posted online that I wish I could take back - not because I regret my beliefs, but because I'm not sure an employer would think the same way.
Maybe that's cowardly. But I'm not a political activist, and my ability to get a job in the future is more important to me than my ability to post letters at Salon. I realize that people who post anonymously or use "handles" will still be able to post, but I think Salon will lose more than the rants and attacks by making this change.
There is an element of the scold in your announcement that asks us to sign our name to posts, with the unhappy impression something akin to "Teacher will now only give out little red stars to obedient boys and girls who mind." Certainly, by all means disallow abusive posts that are antithetical to the spirit of commeraderie and intellectual exchange. But we all know that wishing to remain anonymous, using a handle, or inventing an actual-sounding "name," is liberating to some people and not incompatible with thoughtful posts that one could claim in the light of day.
This seems very un-Salon of you.
One thing I've been bothered by is that there are often several articles on a single issue in Salon at any one time. For example, at the time I write this, there are three articles dealing with the issue of US troops in Iraq kidnapping innocent women and children and putting them under duress to force the surrender of a wanted family member.
Now, what I want to say about that is identical in all three articles, because they're all dealing with the same issue. So how do we handle that? In this case I've posted identicle letters in the comments for each article, but I'm not entirely happy with that solution. Will this be dealt with by some sort of cross-linking in the planned upgrades?
As for the names/handle/anonymous issue, what you're planning sounds about right to me. I've noticed a few instances where it was pretty obvious that people were pretending to be Democrat voters while they were obviously pushing the straight GOP line, and hiding behind pseudonyms, mostly in the debate over whether to filibuster Alito. I think being 'careful' of any post that isn't signed is a good idea.
Surely Salon is aware that it is now more than ever possible on the internet to gain highly detailed information about private individuals.
(A satellite photo of my address, commonly available free-of-charge via a famous search engine, shows my home and the property around it in amazing detail.)
Surely Salon is aware that it is now more than ever risky to publicly voice opinions on a great many subjects: abortion, US foreign policy, gay marriage, Islam, etc.
While Salon's writers of course make themselves vulnerable by publicly expressing their thoughts and opinions, they are paid for doing so and also have the weight and authority of a well-known institution to stand behind them should some fruitcake decide to make them the target of his ill will.
I've very much enjoyed contributing letters to Salon, but I haven't enjoyed it so much that I'd be willing to compromise my privacy and personal safety in order to continue doing so.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
