I spent four hours this week deleting reader comments that were either mean-spirited or inappropriate – and I’m not done yet.

In nearly every case, the offensive words were attached to a story that touched on churches, preachers or faith. In some cases, readers made statements – accusations, really – that they would never dare say to the target’s face.

What’s up with church folks?

When I began planning this site more than three years ago, one of the first decisions I had to make was whether to allow reader comments, and if so, with what restrictions or requirements.

For me, it was really no choice. In the brave new world of online media, reader comments go with stories like cornflakes go with milk. More important, I am an ardent believer in spirited dialogue.

My biggest fear was that Qcitymetro would become the target of hate-fill, racial invective. I am delighted to say that has not occurred, though a few of my Caucasian brothers have emailed me personally to say what they think of me and my website – never leaving a valid email address for my response, of course.

What I didn’t foresee was the venom spewed by people who profess to be Christians. Our coverage of the Jinwright trial seems to have brought out the worst in some. For a while, I had to take down our Jinwright page so that passions could cool.

I’m not the only Internet publisher wrestling with this, of course. Editors at every website from the New York Times on down are wringing their hands, wondering what to do about the growing volume of caustic comments.

Did I mention the Qcitymetro reader who accused a person she saw on our website of giving her an STD? That’s right – she posted it right there in the comments section.

One of the most common suggestions I hear is that we launch an open forum for church members, a place where folks can say whatever is on their minds -- a kinda Sunday school class, if you will. As popular as that might be, I know where that would lead -- to unsubstantiated gossip and preacher bashing, no doubt.

The problem, basically, is that Internet users are cloaked in anonymity – readers can disgorge all manner of bile and never reveal their true identities. Even the sites that require reader registration in reality are anonymous, because most registered users simply opt for screen names, or they simply make something up on the fly.

Recently, some web managers have taken to experimentation. Some allow only Facebook users – whose identities are known – to comment. At least one site I know took a different approach – charging readers 99 cents a year to make comments, then tracing their identities back to the credit cards they use as payment. Others are deputizing readers to act as civility police, rewarding the faithful with small perks or gifts. A more common practice is to disallow comments on topics that will predictably bring out the loonies.

I doubt you’ll see any of that soon on Qcitymetro, but this does present a chance to lay out some simple expectations for those who choose to comment on stories they read here: (1) Mainly, we expect civility. (2) If at all possible, stick to the topic at hand; don’t use comments to drag others into a discussion that has nothing to do with them. (3) No profanity or sexually explicit language. (4) And while we value open debate, we discourage malicious comments that tear others down – even if what you say is true.

Better yet, here’s a simpler rule: When in doubt, leave it out.
***
Glenn Burkins is editor and publisher of Qcitymetro.com. Email: editor@qcitymetro.com.
 

Sign up for our Weekly Email Newsletter Email: For Email Marketing you can trust

Other Ways to Share Twitter Del.icio.us MySpace

Discussions and Submission Agreement