We don’t want draconian reforms but the editors are disinclined to work together
Yesterday, it was reported that the Communications Council wants the trade press to ban anonymous comments. Mumbrella editor Tim Burrowes argued that appropriate moderation is a better approach. In this guest posting, Communications Council chairman Anthony Freedman argues that the issue still needs to be addressed
It seems the article that Simon Canning published in The Australian yesterday has really put the cat amongst the pigeons in suggesting the intention of The Communications Council is to outlaw all anonymous comments.
I think it’s fair to say that The Communications Council Board is not that presumptuous. We are also well aware of the arguments put forward by passionate editors, defending the right for free speech as well as the likelihood that removing anonymity will reduce comments which in turn will reduce site traffic.
Our stance is simple and straightforward. The comments on many industry blogs are mean spirited, unconstructive and more than anything an embarrassment to our industry. They also drive out much of the intelligent and reasoned comment from those who do not want to enter a debate alongside lowest common denominator cheap shots.
Hi Anthony,
To be clear. When you say that the editors are disinclined to work together, that’s not the case for all of us.
I was happy to sit down and talk to the other three editors right until the Comms Council cancelled the meeting shortly before it was due to take place. I’m aware of at least one other editor with the same view.
As I mentioned in my piece yesterday, although I have my views (that comment moderation rather than forced registration is the best approach), I’m open to persuasion and willing to continue the conversation.
After all, breakfast with my three favourite people is an all too rare treat.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
…or alternatively, the media could choose to report on subjects, or in a manner that doesn’t provoke the “lowest common denominator”.
Maybe it’s not the readers fault that they come across as “mean spirited, unconstructive and more than anything an embarrassment to our industry”?
Anthony, sometimes in our passion for what we believe, we get ahead of reality. I just did a quick look at the current LATEST COMMENTS over there on the right, and not one of them could be described as “mindless negativity”. Not one. I suggest you and others on this misguided mission to make the advertising industry appear virtuous to all,(as if that’s ever going to happen, and it shouldn’t) do a similar reality check. Other than the odd exception, most comments are quite civil.
Why is there so much butt-hurt over this? Is there literally nothing more important the Comms Council could worry about?
We are very lucky to have an active comms council. We really don’t need any abuse or lame attempts at political points scoring committed in bad taste on industry forums. It should be seen as gutter talk for gutter people – because that’s exactly what it is. Isn’t? Raise your individual standards and everything else will raise. And gee-wiz, Australia could seriously use a little bit of higher intellectual and inter-communications standards. I bet most of you don’t even know what I mean?! Have a little think about it..
Freedman is absolutely spot -on and good luck to the Comms Council
the mindless anonymous sledging that occurs on Mumbrella and other industry sites massively undermines the standing of the advertising and related industries in the minds of clients like me
They are a major embarrassment and should be dealth with as such
the Comms Council is doing exactly what a peak industry body should be doing and deserves the support of editorial titles and participants.
The ‘freedom of speech’ debate is often brought up in these situations, and this is where someone needs to draw the line.
Is it ‘freedom of speech’ when someone makes derogatory remarks about another person’s genetic makeup? Or is it racism disguised as ‘freedom of speech’?
Is it ‘freedom of speech’ when someone uses a forum to deliberately target individuals, or is that harassment disguised as ‘freedom of speech’?
I’m sure there are many other examples, the fact is while we are free to say what we will, everything we say (or type) has consequences. If a person puts their name to a post, it discredits the individual. If a person remains anonymous, which I support, the few racist / abusive / misguided among us bring every other anonymous poster down, as well as the website they are commenting on.
“massively undermines the standing of the advertising”
🙂
Perhaps there should be two comments streams per subject.
One for higher tone discourse and mindless one for the rabble-taggers?.
I reckon the Comms Council are hiding their fear of criticism behind the argument against anonymity… Just have a look at who is on it and you’ll soon see that there are those who should be the rightful targets of barbed comments… Anonymity is essential… it gets the reality out there and does just a little to prick the bubble of the inflated PR fed bullshit artists that masquerade as creative people or CCOs or whatever acroname they choose to go by…
I don’t think anyone is arguing for us all to turn into boring, uber-polite people without opinions – if you think something is complete rubbish, go for it. Just have the balls to put your name to it because the lack of consequence allowed by anonymity makes people braver and less thoughtful than they would otherwise be and this tends to dumb down the debate.
And if it generally affects the perception of the industry and people within it, why wouldn’t the Comms Council comment on it?
I can’t agree
For an industry that constantly sells “social” I’m somewhat surprised that folk are engaging in the old anonymity argument. There is no way to enforce or regulate “real” identity, so you are simply replacing anonymity with fake names, and nothing will have been resolved. Even if you start verifying with a credit card (as an extreme example) you’ll still have issues – guaranteed.
The way to mitigate risks around non-permissible content is through moderation and community management – something people have been doing online since bulletin boards.
(Incidentally Host is privileged to have one of Australia’s highly respected Community Managers in its fold – Scott Drummond – so good advice is pretty near to hand!)
This is an area where a number of us client-types (with comms expertise) are watching Anthony Freedman’s campaign with disbelieve.
We’ve already moved on from the anonymous vs real identity issue via establishing appropriate context and selecting where to engage based on how effective our involvement will be.
The advertising industry appears far more sensitive about its own image and concerned about criticism than it’s effectiveness – mirror mirror on the wall stuff – unbelievable!
The focus of agencies should be on understanding the social space and how to harness it for the benefit of their clients (hint – stop worrying about anonymity and focus on effective engagement and the delivery of good work, then let the community manage the trolls).