War Games - Why Most MSM Online Forums Suck
On occasion, I've been an avid reader of the online comments on sites like The Globe, The National Post, Calgary Herald, Toronto Sun, CBC, etc. But it's all going to hell, and quickly.
Visit any of those online sites to see for yourself (the illusion of) Internet anonymity run amok.
(There is no anonymity on the Internet, unless you're technically competent enough to hide your tracks, or you've hired someone to do it for you. It's not something that comes with Micr0soft Office or the iPad.)
Thanks to lax registration requirements and amateurish moderation standards, the majority of the online 'discussion' consists of personal insults, name calling, completely unfounded and often scurrilous accusations, constant reposting of the same litany over and over ad nauseum, constant attempts to change the subject to all-too familiar rants. A place where the MSM writers and editors rarely if ever respond, and where the only visible sanction is to make the post go away with a note saying 'We made the post go away'.
Meanwhile, we have anonymous postings, being able to hide your earlier posts, no way to 'ignore' the relentless trolls on both sides of every issue, and the freedom to rant nearly at will.
On occasion, the postings are so egregious as to make me jerk back in my chair, stung by the savagery. One example is enough. There are plenty more where this came from:
"...it is a weak society that convicts its warriors of killing an injured enemy on the battlefield..."
Armies that slaughter injured enemy combatants are usually described using terms such as 'murderers' and 'savages' and 'butchers'. Want more examples? Visit the forums mentioned above.
So what's the current scenario: all too often a nasty, divisive 'public' spaces with all the charm, wit and intelligence of Question Period.
-g
