Friday March 29, 2024
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Apr-23-2009 19:06printcomments

Op Ed: UNinformed, MISinformed
Internet Responses Now
Distorting Public Opinion

Essential First-Step Neglected Brings Abuse Of Channels.

Bad comment
It's taken a while but we're getting things figured out. People see our comment section as a free speech zone and they're learning that is not the case. It is part of the evolution of Internet news which will remain interactive, but more supervised.

(EUGENE, Ore.) - “First find out the facts, then figure out what they really mean”. That’s long been the paramount controlling, shaping and most significant step for millions of Americans who respond to the world-famed American“right of free speech”.

Public opinion -- most powerful operational component for democratic consensus on policy and performance for the commonweal-- depends on honest, accurate citizen understanding of realities. That sole significant truth has signified the American citizen in many actions that have formed, guided and motivated our “experiment in democracy”. It is the foremost characteristic of any true “American exceptionalism” -- characterized early-on by our constant concern for open, probing, very practical dissent, leading on to cooperative practical consensus.

It is world-recognized as essential foundation for the strengths and determinations flowing only from national consensus.

Until very recently, responsible citizens simply did not “shoot off the mouth” in public without at least some preliminary examination of realities.

To do so, then, always carried real consequences, sometimes painful complications. They learned early-on that “public statement demands responsibility and accountability”. They made sure what they stated had fundamental facts-on-hand as prime backing beyond personal feeling. Those who neglected this natural, strong, controlling societal situation soon learned from the appropriate opprobrium of family, friends, colleagues and other citizens.

Parents made sure to assist offspring to understand that “every right is backed by essential responsibility” - and that it was that responsibility which guarantees access to the right.

“Free speech”, wise parents taught, specifically demanded facts-understood, since “everyone has an opinion.” To challenge another’s feelings demanded solid facts from reliable sources -- a strong attribute for every growing child to understand and develop.

Decades of difficult issues, determinedly examined and probed mercilessly and mutually via “Letter To The Editor”, in every daily newspaper, demonstrate that essential American approach to dialog with others. Those “Letters” often set up whole series of well accepted practical reality-recognizing situations for this perhaps more-mature previous generation.

That may be because they were well acquainted with slower, more ethically-shaped public exposure of feeling tone-and-content, by discussants and in the printed-page formats then so widely distributed. Total impact on many legislative and Congressional actions paid off in providing helpful, surely worthwhile reflection of true emerging “public opinion”.

Many will agree that “public opinion” --more carefully created-- was more reliable than less thoughtful reflections now found in Internet channels. The current substitution for daily-paper “Edit page” constant sampling on dominant public issues is extremely misleading.

That situation has become increasingly widespread, constituting dangerous dereliction of our democratic duties to build citizen consensus. We now defy, deny, and if possible “defeat” each other by uninformed or misinformed comments, too-easy word-play and too-facile “debate”.

We present easy public-channel vulnerabilities to those who would malignly influence ALL discussion for private purposes. Internet access to open channels, coupled with temptation to respond rapidly, often driven only by feeling, motivates overly-simplistic comments in every channel.

Far too many respond to too-simple, too-easy, too rapid challenging statements with precisely the same kind of comment --both with little factual basis. Evidence now shows “these controversial comments are often thrown out there specifically to create a consensus-destroying debate with no possible factual conclusion.”

This often-prevailing propaganda mode is meant to advance political pretension, rather than to share-and learn from open, honest democratic dialog.

Manipulation, continuing machination, are planned pattern and approach from those already well versed from forty years of work already on public record. Deepening results are damaging and dangerous: Dialog assumes ethical sharing of information to build knowledge and wise decision via consensus --surely democratic in approach, application and consequence.

Debate demands desperate confrontation, with stakes at risk (ego, influence, policy. performance, and personal political preference) requiring “WIN BY ANY MEANS” attitude, action, and absolute dedication. The most pernicious, strongly seducing, subjective situation is the Internet practice of allowing single pseudonym or ‘Anonymous” attribution for statements.

That provides conspicuous cover for those seeking to distort and pervert public dialog by manipulative practice. (No longer difficult to penetrate, however.) Given only casual confrontation by assumed name, almost ANYone can write almost ANYthing --and go UNchallenged, UNcorrected --“LOL all-the-way”! Others on-channel UNknowingly accept authority thus assumed simply, solely because “stated in public” has always demanded fullly-known background for the source and its responsibility and accountability.

The “by-line” has been required, essential, revealing information supplied to every reader by the publisher of whatever content is under examination. What a direct contrast this now presents to more responsible management by daily newspapers and all other printed-page formats involved, at every level! Name, address and often further information on expertise and essential background is automatically supplied; and full ID is furnished -- even for “Letters”- only participants.

A centuries-old responsible characteristic of all reliable print-format, the by-line did not come about by chance but by the very situation we now face -- AGAIN !!-- of irresponsible sources and unaccountable originators of ostensibly reliable statement. The first and foremost component of the world accepted working-formula dictating wise communications practice is: “WHO says WHAT to WHOM”.

Knowing your source for what it really is guides the only possible process for proper understanding of any message whatsoever, at any level, for any purpose. Without that, one must always operate with only cautious confidence in what is communicated. Normal, natural conversational recognition is - naturally - the most revealing pattern: Would you allow a masked-man, unknown to you and spouting questionable comment, to come into your living room? That simple formula, emphasizing absolute need to know both “source” and “intended audience”, is still further expanded for professional workers by: “In WHICH channel, for WHAT PURPOSE”.

More than a century of research went into that eleven-word pattern providing nearly perfect probing examination of every component in every communication. That’s WHY all serious printed-formats demand and always supply the “by-line” for each and every serious contributor.

Internet “conversations” may soon be modified to change this increasingly dangerous non-ID’d vulnerability. The very same responsible/accountable approach already proven demanded by reality in centuries-tested printed-page formats --perhaps slightly modified-- is the most likely successor to dangerous anonymity.

My mother warned me, just as I started walking to school, never to talk with strange men emerging from alleys and other hidden places. “They have more in mind than you will want to share,” she said.

She was right, as usual.

As I’ve learned, sometimes the hard way, in a long and very checkered career in communications at every level and in every form. That’s why I share her strongly-felt personal feeling with you here in this open, honest, democratic channel devoted to sharing and learning. Those very-eager but masked commenteers may well be very strange persons, emerging from particularly dangerous hiding places, as either volunteer or paid shill.

----------------------------------------------------------

Henry Clay Ruark is one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Henry Ruark April 25, 2009 2:28 pm (Pacific time)

Anon (2): You wrote:"I also don't get why you keep putting the phrase free speech in quotations like the definition is still up for debate or something." Writerr's so use quotes to indicate when something taken for granted is undoubtedly still in question. My use is to redlight fact that often free-speech right is taken too broadly, wihout any due regard to unavoidable reality that ANY statement, to be at all meaningful, must come from SOMEone, and that avoidance of showing source is simply avoidance of the major issue of responsibility and accountability --demonstrated far too often now via Internet ease of comment while hiding behind lack-of-source and thus avoiding both r. and a. Again, a moment's thought prior to posting comment might well have taken you to Google source for same answer,perhaps much better done than mine !! Thus we both avoid waste of time, attention, space here and cost to Tim --whose strong patience is obviously wearing a bit thin... !!


Henry Ruark April 25, 2009 2:01 pm (Pacific time)

E.W: Thamk for for an insightful and thought-COMPELLING shorter Op Ed. You are playing song loud and clear that some of us "in the media" have helped write over the years That music is now gaining very strong impact and more understandings broadly as more millions learn the hard way what happens when "one dollar equals one vote" --and others have billions to spend. WE own the Internet by force of user-millions worldwide. WE can set and enforce HOW it is used, for WHAT --and, if it becomes necessary, BY WHOM. OUR FCC sets pace, pattern and protocol via policy and purposeful action since U.S. remains largest, most lavish and most essential market and major test-bed for technology. In these early-days we had better protect its process and pattern for our probable democratic usage later, by how we comport ourselves NOW and respond each to the other. I knew Newton Minow,former FCC Commissioner, via involvement in D.C. before he was appointed; he even then echoed many of the points made in Op Eds here over the past several years.


Henry Ruark April 25, 2009 1:50 pm (Pacific time)

Anon: The answers are "NO" and "NO". They dialoged via The Federalist Papers, originally published via newspaper. Each of more than 50 essays, drawn from personal dialog and study of famed philosophers then, carried a pseudonym, usually wellknown for whom it stood, often reflecting a view of the content included. Their stuff was signed and well-understood for source; it is now famed for the makings of our democracy via the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, forming the framework of our governance system. Here's definition:pseudonym (as in "name") n. : a fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role. As you see, that had no hiding quality then, with choice of name used to begin signification of the essay meaning, for some content. Yrs reflects an ignorance easily corrected prior to public embarrassment by simple Google on same computer used to send it. Anon here serves only for nailing down shame of "failure to own your own statement", as stated by another commenteer.


Ersun Warncke April 25, 2009 12:00 pm (Pacific time)

A very thoughtful piece. I have a great deal of admiration for the Salem-News. You run stories that do not receive coverage elsewhere, and the depth and quality of the analysis provided by your writers is certainly above average, to put it modestly. I admire your initiative in attempting to elevate the level and relevance of discourse in your public forum. I instinctively view media outlets as, alternately, sources of entertainment or propaganda. Whether I am justified in this view I will leave to others to judge. These are not the only roles that media can play, and I have great respect for individuals and organizations that strive to and succeed in doing more. Where traditional media provides a limited access propaganda platform, the internet has become a propaganda free-for-all. Perhaps what is disguised in this den of voices is that the voices that ring the loudest are still those backed by large amounts of money. In a sea of information, with no inherent credibility and no objective measure of veracity, the one who speaks the loudest is the one who speaks the truth. The nature of the internet also gives it a unique advantage as a propaganda tool. While television, film and newspaper are broadcast mediums where a message must be constructed to appeal to a very large number of people with different backgrounds and interests, the internet can be used to connect with individuals directly. Propaganda messages can be repackaged in as many customized flavors as needed. At little additional cost, groups of people from widely disparate backgrounds can be given the same message, but in a form that is specifically tailored to their individual backgrounds and interests. To be aware of these potential pitfalls in using the internet as a communications and information device is crucial. I consider it to be an excellent decision to exercise appropriate editorial discretion over public comments on your site. I believe that it is the only way to actually make that commentary and discourse relevant as true public forum where citizens can organize and direct their social activity. I expect nothing less from the S-N based on your fine editorial content, but I applaud you none the less.


Anonymous April 24, 2009 11:59 pm (Pacific time)

Did the founding fathers not write anonymously in primitive blogs? I also don't get why you keep putting the phrase free speech in quotations like the definition is still up for debate or something. I am also posting this anonymously to make a point.


Joe Wright April 24, 2009 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

I have long been an advocate of putting your name to your comments. "Anonymous" comments have always been considered, by me at least, to be irrelevamt chatter written by someone too lazy to type their name or just plain cowardly. Own your comment or shut up.


Henry Ruark April 24, 2009 11:47 am (Pacific time)

Friend Scott: By your own words under another thread, with probing Editor's comment, you admit use of more than one name. That should fully illuminate the necessity to which this and other Op Eds has pointed for some months. Ethical free speech doth not permit that kind of name-play, as explained in Op Ed --and amply justified in the classic reference-text/audio-set I cited. You can shout out whatever you want anywheres; but we are bound, legally/morally/professionally to protect other readers from precisely that creepy approach exemplified by your actions.


Henry Ruark April 24, 2009 11:36 am (Pacific time)

Friend Scott: "Zone" intended to show we not "free-fire" channel, for irresponsibles seeking to exercise ego, promote endless "debate", project p-pander,and fail to bring facts from "see with own eyes" sources for others to "evaluate with own minds". Responsible dissent is the heart of democratic dialog and of democracy itself. We trying our damndest to promote needed organization for honest dialog, sharing results in open, mature, democratic learning for all concerned. If you can participate on that level, welcome. Bring facts, cite sources, share what you know and can justify as you contribute. If not, refer to illustration. Neither caption/copy or illustration was produced by me; but open abuse of First Amendment responsibility and accountability is growing danger across the nation -- confirmed by my many sources for this Op Ed. S-N means to lead in open channel approach while still learning how to do it openly, honestly, democratically. Experience so far shows real need for further careful use of publisher responsibilities. Check out history of First Amendment (Federalist Papers); or consult Supremes decisions on four-part special audio record/set, text:"May It Please The Court";Peter Irons; ISBN: 1-56584-330-4.


scott April 24, 2009 9:09 am (Pacific time)

thanks for the clarification regarding free speech on your site. "People see our comment section as a free speech zone and they're learning that is not the case."

[Return to Top]
©2024 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for April 22, 2009 | Articles for April 23, 2009 | Articles for April 24, 2009
Support
Salem-News.com:

Click here for all of William's articles and letters.

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.



Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley