Shortly after writing my last post about an email I just sent off to Rep. George Miller, I see this in my feed reader (the comments are a hoot!):

In response to a mass email from the staff of Ward 8 Council member Marion Barry, which was sent to Page apparently by mistake, the irritated classical critic fired back an off-the-cuff response. Danger! Danger! As everyone should know by now, when you send an email you should just assume that everyone in the world is going to read it.

…

Barry and his staff are demanding that the Post fire Page, and the paper has actually placed him on leave.

Here’s the email Page sent:

Must we hear about it every time this Crack Addict attempts to rehabilitate himself with some new — and typically half-witted — political grandstanding? I’d be grateful if you would take me off your mailing list. I cannot think of anything the useless Marion Barry could do that would interest me in the slightest, up to and including overdose. Sincerely, Tim Page.

Really? Page was placed on leave for this?

Really?

I have been wrong for a while now, I guess. Newpapers aren’t becoming irrelevent because of lackluster design, pompous editorial attitudes, laziness, inability to adapt to technology, boring news, boring writing and boring graphics.

brass, gall, nerve, spine, rocks, cajones

They are becoming irrelevent because they lack balls.

This is the god damned Washington Post and they’re caving because an off-the-cuff email. Please.

I could understand if it was a political reporter. The relationships there are important for WaPo. I could undertand if it was what was said in the email was untrue (it’s not, Barry has been busted for coccaine several times). I could understand if the email Barry’s staff sent out wasn’t a mass email (read: spam, bacn, news release, it’s all the same).

But this was a response to an inadvertant email meant to fly into an abyss like every other take-me-the-fuck-off-your-fucking-list emails millions of American send out every day. Excuse my French, but I think I’m painting an accurate portrayal of the digital culture we live in.

Back to newspapers: Grow some. Try harder. Stop whining. Stop making bland decisions by committee.

Stop being wimps. Do something.

Bismarck Tribune editor John Irby writes ‘Civility now required in our Web site postings.’ As a fellow North Dakotan and as a fellow Web journalist, I know just how stupid and racist and childish people can be on the Web.

Still. That’s no excuse for these words:

Censorship is not a dirty word. It isn’t always desirable, but it is sometimes necessary to prevent overly disturbing, painful, uncivilized or inappropriate thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness. Censorship claims are sometimes charged by readers when parts or all of what has been submitted or gleaned is killed.

Or these words:

“Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.” That warning has long been posted online, and our pledge will continue. But a new posting will also appear that sets a higher standard for publication. “… comments must adhere to some basic principles of public conversation … comments will not be posted that contain potential libel and slander, personal insults and name calling or profanity. Posts must be issue-orientated and civil.”

First of all, we’re not talking about censorship, per se. We’re talking about moderation. Irby: please put that in your lexicon next time you go on a rant against your readers.

Secondly, this is a misuse of technology. Irby even quotes the reason why in-house moderation of comments is a misuse of technology (though he doesn’t know it, yet):

Chris Satullo, editorial page editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, said: “Newspapers are one of the four or five institutions in a community that help the community define itself. We’re part of the civic glue. We’re the place where the community thinks out loud.”

This is becoming increasingly less true as the Web forms clusters of like-minded people into communities about ideas, subjects, geographical location, among infinite other possibilities. Newspapers are shutting themselves out of the discourse.

Furthermore, top-down moderation (or ‘censorship’) is not the way to enforce community standards. You shouldn’t be the judge. The community should be.

If the community is getting unruly, let the community weed out the nonsense. Policing the chats will only eat away at your time and your sanity, particularly on hot-button issues.

There are other methods out there. Some are better than others, but all are better than inhibiting discussion.

• Ask your readers to use their real names.
• Ask your readers to provide you with an email address.
• Ask your readers to register an account.
• Moderate the users first post, then let the rest flow in.
• Add a ‘report this comment’ button to each comment.
• Create voting mechanisms similar to Digg or YouTube where crap falls below a viewing threshold.

But most importantly:

• Be a neighbor.
• Engage your community.
• Don’t dictate the rules of engagement.
• Don’t dictate the tone of the community.
• Don’t hinder your ability to let your community think out loud.

I know you’re trying to do what’s right for your site, but don’t do it under the thin veil of “community standards.”

Don’t be lazy.

Don’t be pompous.