Be aware and... "enjoy" these letters and comments responsibly and carefully. What I mean to say is all you know about these people, and me, is what we write here (and on the ST forum page). We are more than just what we write.
Some of us may actually be nice people. For some of us, English may not be our first language, and the letters may have been mistranslated. Or poorly edited by the Forum Page Editor.Nevertheless, the comments and insults are directed at the letter as published. I cannot be responsible for what the newspapers published, or edited, or omitted. If you wrote a fantastic letter that was edited into idiocy by the forum letter editor, it is not my fault, and it may well be not your fault (except for your sending it to the newspaper and agreeing with their editorial policy). So if I have savaged one of your highly edited letter, feel free NOT to take it personally. Or do. I am also not responsible for your level of maturity and ability to separate yourself from your letter.
As for the rest who is just here for your regular dose of bile, read the study below and be warned.
[Nov 2017 update: There was a letter on rudeness and sarcasm on the web. And why it should not be. This blog thrives on rudeness and sarcasm. Maybe this blog does not deserve to exist. Or maybe we need a bastion of sensibility against the tide of imbecility that are the thoughts and opinions of "unthinking boors who have an over-inflated sense of the importance and intelligence of their half-baked opinions and who think nothing of inflicting their ignorance and ignorantly-conceived opinions on others and expect others to be unthinkingly grateful for their "pearls" of swine droppings."
I believe that if you think your opinion is worthy of public sharing that it be subject to the harshest and most stringent assessment. Because coddling stupid opinions simply encourages stupidity. ]
Mar 06, 2013
By Dominique Brossard And Dietram Scheufele
IN
THE beginning, the technology gods created the Internet and saw that it
was good. Here, at last, was a public sphere with unlimited potential
for reasoned debate and the thoughtful exchange of ideas, an
enlightening conversational bridge across the many geographic, social,
cultural, ideological and economic boundaries that ordinarily separate
us in life, a way to pay bills without a stamp.
Then someone invented "reader comments" and paradise was lost.
The
Web, it should be said, is still a marvellous place for public debate.
But when it comes to reading and understanding news stories online -
like this one, for example - the medium can have a surprisingly potent
effect on the message. Comments from some readers, our research shows,
can significantly distort what other readers think was reported in the
first place.
But here, it's not the content of the comments that matters. It's the tone.
In
a study published online in The Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication last month, we and three colleagues report on an
experiment designed to measure what one might call "the nasty effect".
We
asked 1,183 participants to carefully read a news post on a fictitious
blog, explaining the potential risks and benefits of a new technology
product called nanosilver. These infinitesimal silver particles, tinier
than 100-billionths of a metre in any dimension, have several potential
benefits (like antibacterial properties) and risks (like water
contamination), the online article reported.
Then
we had participants read comments on the post, supposedly from other
readers, and respond to questions regarding the article's content.
Half
of our sample was exposed to civil reader comments and the other half
to rude ones - though the actual content, length and intensity of the
comments, which varied from being supportive of the new technology to
being wary of the risks, were consistent across both groups. The only
difference was that the rude ones contained epithets or curse words, as
in: "If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these
kinds of products, you're an idiot" and "You're stupid if you're not
thinking of the risks for the fish and other plants and animals in water
tainted with silver."
The
results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only
polarised readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation
of the news story itself.
In
the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the
technology - whom we identified with preliminary survey questions -
continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed
to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarised
understanding of the risks connected with the technology.
Simply
including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make
study participants think the downside of the reported technology was
greater than they'd previously thought.
While
it's hard to quantify the distortional effects of such online
nastiness, it's bound to be quite substantial, particularly - and
perhaps ironically - in the area of science news.
About
60 per cent of the Americans seeking information about specific
scientific matters say the Internet is their primary source of
information - ranking it higher than any other news source.
Our
emerging online media landscape has created a new public forum without
the traditional social norms and self-regulation that typically govern
our in-person exchanges - and that medium, increasingly, shapes both
what we know and what we think we know.
One
possible approach to moderate the nasty effect, of course, is to shut
down online reader comments altogether, as some media organisations and
bloggers have done. Mr Paul Krugman's blog post on this newspaper's
website on the 10th anniversary of Sept 11, for instance, simply ended
with "I'm not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious
reasons."
Other media outlets have devised rules to promote civility or have actively moderated reader comments.
But,
as they say, the genie is out of the bottle. Reader interaction is part
of what makes the Web the Web - and, for that matter, Facebook, Twitter
and every other social media platform what they are. This phenomenon
will only gain momentum as we move deeper into a world of smart TVs and
mobile devices where any type of content is immediately embedded in a
constant stream of social context and commentary.
It's
possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change
once more - with users shunning mean-spirited attacks from posters
hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead.
Until then, beware the nasty effect.
NEW YORK TIMES
No comments:
Post a Comment