I, Censor
I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. I just had my first uncomfortable moment as a blogger. As you probably know, comments to the Café are moderated. Why? Because enterprising (read incredibly annoying) spammers like to try to post comments with links to all sorts of weird stuff. I’m sure you don’t need to be reading ads for the latest XXX sites or pharmaceuticals here. No doubt you get enough spam in your inbox already.
Well, some person just tried to post a comment that was less than complimentary about a certain politician - totally unrelated to the topics at hand in the Café. I thought for a moment and then hit the delete button. At that moment, I had a distinctly uncomfortable feeling. Frankly, I don’t like being a censor but I guess it comes with the territory.
I then got to thinking about you Café patrons and thought you should know that the only time I will not allow a comment is if it contains offensive language or is clearly defamatory to an individual or group. Ideas are more than welcome - the more diverse the better - but so is respect for the others in the Café.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:52 am
Warren,
That is an uncomfortable decision to have to make, but thank you for making it. You’e given us the opportunity to express our thoughts here, with very few boundaries. I’ve read–and written–posts that reflect opposite sides of issues, and have been gratified that posters remained professional and respectful, even when disagreeing.
You said the deleted comment was “totally unrelated to the topics at hand in the Café.” When I was a reporter (many years ago), I often had to sift through my notes to choose the comments from sources to include in a story. Not every comment made its way into the story. Some, though interesting, were extraneous to the story.
At some times, even controversial comments would be appropriate to include–particularly if they shed light on the character or motivation of the source being quoted. I bet that if you had allowed the censored post to go through, the writer’s point and motivation would have been obvious to us.
However, that isn’t reason enough to publish someone’s message–doubly true if the message contains potentionally libelous allegations or contains profanity. This blog is hosted by a professional, international association for communicators!
We have covered a fair range of topics on this blog, but the underlying matter has remained communications. Sounds like the deleted post was an example of bad communications.
Tom
July 6th, 2005 at 7:49 am
I agree that controversial comments are appropriate - in fact I would encourage strong debate - if the comments shed light on a subject. I think of the Café much like I do a good dinner party. There are some subjects - like politics and religion - that should be left for other times and other venues. The comment I deleted was blatantly political. I would strongly encourage the poster to add his voice in the political wing of the blogosphere. There is plenty of room there for such comments.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:06 am
Hi, Warren.
There are other ways to deal with most of these issues than the kind of moderation currently employed. Comment spam is automated, so a scheme like Captcha (which requires someone to enter the graphic image of a word that is not machine-readable) will keep automated spammers out. Since putting Captcha to use on my blog, I’ve had no comment spam at all. (There is the problem of the visually impaired, of course.) As for inappropriate language, etc., General Motors deals with these through moderation after the post has gone up. The problem with pre-post moderation occurred during conference, when three people made the same technical observation. The only reason each of them did this was because the last two to make the comment didn’t know the first one already had — it hadn’t cleared moderation yet. Hey, if it’s good enough for GM…
July 6th, 2005 at 8:07 am
Oh, I also deleted - well, didn’t post - a comment that had nothing to do with my post. I just didn’t really think too much about it, as it was actually a pitch.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:58 am
As several other bloggers point out on their own blogs, they are the owners of the medium. The rest of us are guests who have been given an invitation to participate. But we can just as easily be invited to leave. As chairman of the association that owns IABC Cafe’ - and as chief barista - you have every right to disallow comments that are offensive, off topic, or whatever. Just like a newspaper decides what it will print or a broadcaster decides what will go out on its airwaves.
Just as it comes down to the public’s trust of the news media - trust that is earned and re-earned with every story - we IABC members will decide if we can trust this blog as a place for truly open discussion and a source of reliable information. We’ll make that decision every time we read a post, based on the degree to which we feel we can trust you.
In “censoring” the comment, Warren, you have provided a reasonable explanation of why you did so. That itself causes me to trust you more as the author and moderator of this blog. I’ll bring up the controversy surrounding IABC’s silence about the settlement of Ms. Allen’s lawsuit - not to reopen old wounds, but to draw a contrast. A simple explanation of why IABC was silent about the lawsuit would have gone a long way to restore members’ trust in IABC’s candor. In this case, you shared no details of the “censored” comments, but you gave us a good understanding of why you chose not to post them. Fair enough.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Looks like all the usual suspects have weighed in
Because I currently have access to the Café’s inner workings (believe it or not, I still have a backlog of conference posts), I actually saw the comment in question, and followed a link it contained to a Web site for additional info. And I couldn’t figure out for the life of me what it had to do with IABC. As reported, it was political in nature (not on topic).
It’s good to know that we all take this responsibility seriously, and welcome controversial or opposing viewpoints that are on topic. But like others have said - I don’t think we have to sweat off topic comments.
Members would likely call that “editing,” versus censorship.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Weekly Association Blog Roundup
Some interesting posts from association-sponsored blogs this past week:
Pat Cleary at the National Association of Manufacturers shares a scenario making the rounds about current power struggles at the AFL-CIO. He also shares a video of a Fender guita…