Anonymous reader comments hurt democracy

There's been a battle about the use of anonymous reader comments. How can a newspaper, which values transparency above all else, advocate readers masking who they are? These comment board discussions often devolve into name-calling and other unintelligent discourse. It's pretty reasonable to think that discussions would be more high-minded if users were required to provide their real names. We're all responsible for what we say, but not if you use a pseudonym.

I did some research on this in the fall, and concluded that anonymous reader comments hurt freedom of speech and democracy, by subjecting sources to intimidation and ridicule. Sources can be unwilling to go on the record, thus limiting the press' ability to hold others accountable. It's probably more prevalent on a local level.

This is something Doug Fisher will address at a journalism conference this summer in Chicago.

I wonder what others out there think about this? How harmful are anonymous comments?

I love "The Wire"

Since the demise of "Journeyman," HBO's "The Wire" has become my newest can't-miss TV show. I'm not one for crime dramas. I've never seen "Law & Order" for more than a few minutes, and none of its counterparts have ever been boob tube destinations for me. But, "The Wire" is just good.

And I think I know why I like it so much. It's the newspapers, stupid!

After, no other show on television gives any play to newspapers. There was Bravo's short-lived "Tabloid Wars," but that was over pretty fast.

"The Wire," in case you didn't know, details the crime-ridden world of Baltimore from the eyes of gangsters in the street, cops tired of bureaucracy and the Baltimore Sun, fighting its own battle with the city and the business.

One of the reporters, a self-aggrandizing young newsie named Scott Templeton, scares me. He wants to be good, really good. So do I, but Templeton's moving towards a dangerous plateau. After moving to the Sun from the Wichita Eagle and then the Kansas City Star, Templeton's stuck. And his frustration at making it big is causing him to have some severe ethical lapses.

He's begun fabricating conversations with a serial killer who is murdering homeless men. The serial killer, of course, is a fabrication of the police department's homicide unit, which needs more manpower. It's a train wreck waiting to happen.

Last week, Templeton used a pay phone to call his cell phone, then made up a conversation with the killer. My heart jumped when I saw it. It's scary for me to see someone make such a terrible decision. After all, I'm taking an ethics course right now.

I only get emotional during select TV programs -- "Ed," for one. Great show. -- but I'm so mad at this guy. He's bright, he's young, he's got a future and talent. And he's throwing it away. Look, a lot of reporters have dreams of being great fiction writers. But the newsroom is not the place.

I'm interested to see how this mess will play out. My guess is that Templeton joins the Journalism Hall of Shame.

CSU editor should have been fired

J. David McSwain, the editor of Colorado State's Daily Collegian paper, got lucky this week. He's keeping his job after coming up fire for a two-word editorial chastising President Bush.

He should have been canned.

I am all for editorial freedom and I deeply believe in the First Amendment, but McSwain engaged in buffoonery that further tarnishes the reputation of journalists. The editorial, which read "Taser this: FUCK BUSH," was ostensibly in response to the tasering of a University of Florida student at a John Kerry event. Let's be clear: Bush didn't taser the kid. Overaggressive campus cops did and, despite your thoughts on Bush, he didn't encourage their behavior.

So the political statement is lost in a mixed metaphor of sorts.

Why should McSwain be fired? Quite frankly, the editorial was a grab for attention, not a provacative statement. Newspaper editorials should be thoughtful accounts of opinion, not trigger-happy zingers that have no literary value. The paper provided a disservice to its readers...and continues to do so, as advertisers jump ship.

McSwain proved to be an irresponsible editor and that's why he should have been fired.

Unbalanced Down Under

Apparently President Bush muddled through another speech this week. He was in Australia and committed several gaffes, outlined here in an AP story. While the story was mildly amusing, it seemed to me to be pretty non-newsworthy and terribly biased against the tongue-tied commander-in-chief. Bush is not gifted with a penchant for elegant prose, that's for sure, but how could the AP run a story like this?

It rubs me wrong in a few ways:

• Where's the news? Bush flubs words all the time and it doesn't make headlines.
  
• Where's the balance? This is a news story masking an editorial piece. It highlights his incompetence, but does nothing to refute it or add value to the piece. He may have called Aussie troops "Austrian" and called APEC "OPEC," but did his speech have anything important to add?
• It exposes bias. Bush is no fan of the press, and I imagine the feeling is likewise. For media-bashers out there, this piece gives them plenty of ammo, especially since the AP should be as unbiased as they come.

I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but this story is the pits.

Here's a clip:

Harry Potter, you beautiful bastard

This morning, at approximately 1:30 a.m., I finished “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” I freaking love Harry Potter, and I might just follow through with my delayed plan to be him for Halloween. So what if I’m 27?

As I wrote the other day, I’ve avoided all things Potter before I finished the book. Now, I might just skip class and catch up on the stuff I’ve been missing. OK, maybe not, but I came across a cool story from last week’s Chicago Tribune about how the media handled an information embargo of Hallows.

I was one of many who was worried that I would come across spoilers, leaving me pissed and frustrated that I knew the outcome of the book before I read it. It happened to me before I read “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” and it almost happened before I cracked open Hallows. With so much speculation about who would die and who would live and the media circus prefacing the book’s released, I was seriously concerned. So like a thestral in flight, I put on blinders and avoided Potter news like mandrakes.

The Trib’s Patrick Reardon gives kudos to the media for keeping the lid on. I do, too (though this kid seems to not care so much. Must be a Slytherin). And Reardon goes a step further, calling for a “Harry Potter check” (PotterWatch?) in the news.

He is fed up with news stories bursting with lurid details on the lives of public figures, when really, no news would suffice. Color me bored, uninterested, and less interesting when I read about Evan Vitter’s diaper fetish, a Florida statesman’s gay bathroom escapades and Anna freaking Nicole, Paris freaking Hilton, Lindsday freaking Lohan (though I’m probably her knight in shining armor), etc., etc. I’ve ranted on this before over at Spin Sucks.

Sometimes these stories are valuable. We learned that a member of Congress was a perv. We learned that close-minded evangelists were really hypocritical. But by discerning what is really news, what matters, what will inform the reader about the issues, we can help turn the tables on muckracking and other undesirable practices. Rita Skeeter would be devastated.

In terms of Harry Potter, however, journos did the public a service by giving us the pleasure of finishing the last book. Muggles, while however complicated, performed like Gryiffindors in this instance.