A central dilemma in legacy media's efforts in digital journalism is how to deal with differing cultures of the platforms. Paid versus free, for instance. One-to-many versus many-to-many.
And transparent versus anonymous. The ability for people to shield their identities in posting and commenting online poses a challenge for many media organizations steeped on the discipline of verification and the discretion of concealment.
The Daily Telegraph's Paul Carr, always a thoughtful writer, weighs in with a blog/essay that outlines many of the core issues in the debate still coursing through newsrooms of what to do about the anonymous.
Is anonymity an abuse of privilege or a basic right of privacy? From what I can tell, few newsrooms have settled the matter and left an incongruence in their operations. Namely, letter-writers are identified and checked and commenters could be anyone.
It seems, as Carr suggests, that the time has come for a greater focus on this issue --- not to curtail the liveliness of the Internet but to strengthen its credibility. Indeed, Carr believes that recommendation algorithms are needed to help the situation --- trust-building gauges of our reputations and records as contributors, in essence.
What do you think? Comments welcome, particularly from those who will stand and be counted.
And transparent versus anonymous. The ability for people to shield their identities in posting and commenting online poses a challenge for many media organizations steeped on the discipline of verification and the discretion of concealment.
The Daily Telegraph's Paul Carr, always a thoughtful writer, weighs in with a blog/essay that outlines many of the core issues in the debate still coursing through newsrooms of what to do about the anonymous.
Is anonymity an abuse of privilege or a basic right of privacy? From what I can tell, few newsrooms have settled the matter and left an incongruence in their operations. Namely, letter-writers are identified and checked and commenters could be anyone.
It seems, as Carr suggests, that the time has come for a greater focus on this issue --- not to curtail the liveliness of the Internet but to strengthen its credibility. Indeed, Carr believes that recommendation algorithms are needed to help the situation --- trust-building gauges of our reputations and records as contributors, in essence.
What do you think? Comments welcome, particularly from those who will stand and be counted.
