Jackson Free Press

OK, I've been bad. Of a fashion. In recent months, I've gotten so caught up in new projects (like the new BOOM Jackson quarterly!) and in volunteer work and in managing what is quickly becoming our best staff ever (collectively speaking; we've always had great staffers), that I just haven't been blogging on the JFP site. And, yes, I admit it: I've found it easy to put a pithy statement or two on Facebook, and perhaps a link back to a JFP story, and leave it at that. But I've realized that isn't the best way to act, live and work LOCAL, and I'm a local-vore if you ever did meet one. So, starting today, I've got a new attitude. You're going to hear more from me on the JFP site (even though it's best for my productivity to not get too caught up in conversations under stories!).

One exciting development that has me thinking this way is the JFP staff's new road to wellness. In a couple weeks, we're launching a blog and dedicating the BodySoul section of the paper every two weeks to our own staff's efforts at getting healthier. I'll do a separate blog post on that -- now that I'm the Queen of Blogging again -- but what's great is that I'm already doing the kinds of things for my health that I know I need to, and gradually getting more energy as a result. Inspired by the Jackson Bike Advocates (which our news editor Lacey McLaughlin helped start), Todd and I got bikes on the road a couple weeks ago, and have been having a blast. I used to be an avid bicyclist (can't quite call myself a "cyclist"; sounds so Tour de France), and I'm loving it again. I'm gradually working my way up to bigger hills, and I have a baby-blue bike helmet. (Never used to wear one; sign of the more careful times!). Having ridden to work, yet, but I will!

I have one of those retro-looking brown Schwinn bikes, and now I just need a big basket on the front, so I can go to McDade's or pick up biscuits from Mimi's. So thrilled. We've even been getting up early to ride some days. I already feel like I have more energy.

Another thing that is motivating me to blog again is a mild annoyance at how many national media companies, or those based in other states, are trying to swoop in and "play local." I see them on Facebook posting as local sites (like that "365 things to do in Jackson"), and I just read an article in Fast Company (I think) about how national media companies are trying to do this all over the place in order to get local advertising dollars to leave town by pretending to be local (which means many of them employ people in other places). We already have enough of a local-washing problem with the Gannett Corp., so it's frustrating to see others popping up to get everything they can from Jackson and take off. Many of them have a local representative or two, but they are still trying to drawing a lot of the revenue out of the city and out of state. Another local publisher, Jack Criss, wrote me about it this week, not pleased either, and it got me thinking about it. Thus, we'll be looking at some of these outlets closer as the weeks go by.

That, in turn, made me question why I'm using Facebook to communicate with people rather than the JFP site, which brought the first blogging, commenting, online PDFs and audio files, and other multi-media tools to the Jackson market. We already have a new "Public Eye" multimedia plan under way, and other fun new announcements coming shortly. But I need to have my own voice on our own locally owned and operated Web site. So I'm back. And, yes, I will continue to social network with Facebook, Twitter, etc., but with the primary goal of showing people all the great stuff happening right here in Jackson, Miss., and on the JFP Web site.

Oh, and on that note, we quietly started testing Facebook Connect a couple months back. Basically, it means you can log into our site using your Facebook log-in without setting up an account on this site. Of course, we prefer that you have an account here (and it has its own advantages), but we love giving readers a wide variety of options. And it is perfect timing as a backlash against "anonymous" commenting grows across the country, after so many media outlets have allowed trash and bigotry to take over their Web commenting. (The only thing I ever hear people say about the Ledger anymore is that (a) they've shrunk to near-nothing and (b) how ugly their commenting is.) This clearly was a desperation move for media outlets with shrinking readerships, but our paper has steadily grown in readership and pages through the recession and, even if it hadn't, we would not have allowed trash and libel to show up in our comments. The system Todd instituted a year or so ago that puts new comments into moderation mode, but allows trusted users to comment without moderation, has worked beautifully. The trolls now tend to just bypass the JFP because they know their unsigned garbage won't get through. At least one person every day thanks us for our moderation policy -- which is the exact system that a columnist for The Wall Street Journal recommended recently in order to keep trash, lies and libel off the site.

OK, back to work. More soon, I promise. Be good out there.

Previous Comments

ID

157642

Comment

Also, we encourage everyone posting here to use your real name, first and last, unless you have a good reason to use a different screen name. You don't have to (and we know who most people here who post here under screen names are), but we believe this kind of self-regulation is needed to protect the integrity of online conversations! (And keep people honest!). So go change your screen name and join us on this bandwagon if you feel comfortable doing so! You're already in practice doing it on Facebook anyway. ;-) Put another way: Only post stuff you would sign your name to! (And if it's a story tip about someone, send to: [email protected] instead of posting.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-05-05T12:05:13-06:00

ID

157657

Comment

Another thing that is motivating me to blog again is a mild annoyance at how many national media companies, or those based in other states, are trying to swoop in and "play local." I see them on Facebook posting as local sites (like that "365 things to do in Jackson"), and I just read an article in Fast Company (I think) about how national media companies are trying to do this all over the place in order to get local advertising dollars to leave town by pretending to be local This does appear to be the happening. I read articles of the kind that left me feeling like I had become the unwilling victim of a drive-by or something of the nature. As if I had no say in the matter whatsoever, only the fact that it had to be accepted.

Author

Don Smith

Date

2010-05-06T08:15:20-06:00

ID

157661

Comment

It's called "local washing," and if we're all not careful, it will take more jobs and money out of the community.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-05-06T09:21:41-06:00

ID

157788

Comment

RE: "Also, we encourage everyone posting here to use your real name, first and last, unless you have a good reason to use a different screen name." It is my opinion that screen names allow for more accurate and candid on-line conversations. People are more likely to express their true feelings anonymously rather than watering down opinions- or not commenting at all- in fear an employer or client may take offense to their rightful opinion, regardless of an individual's freedom of expression. It also helps to gauge the true undercurrent of cultural bias (descrimination, intolerance, et) as people do not have to filter their opinions for the same reasons cited above, and will more freely speak their true mind. It sounds good to say, "If you have a strong opinion, you shouldn't be afraid to put your name behind it" but that is just bravado. Also, if people had to use their real name you would probably lose quite a lot of comments, b/c most people are not supposed to be surfing the Internet at work. Anyway, take it as you will, but I will not be changing my name. Good article BTW.

Author

The Eskimo

Date

2010-05-12T10:46:07-06:00

ID

157795

Comment

It sounds good to say, "If you have a strong opinion, you shouldn't be afraid to put your name behind it" but that is just bravado. How is that bravado? I don't disagree that some people's "candid" opinions might come out if they're anonymous, but that doesn't negate the assertion that an opinion that someone stands behind publicly has more power. We certainly won't do away with screen names anytime soon, but we'll be doing what we can to encourage real names or more identifiable screen names. (We may even "elevate" the status of real-name users in the future.) We've got a few year's experience at this now, and I personally have found that the conversations are better when people take more responsibility for their comments.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-05-12T13:43:37-06:00

ID

157799

Comment

Point blank. If you have something to say, controversial or otherwise, you should be man or woman enough to claim it. PERIOD. Anything outside of that is cowardice. ...And if you shouldnt be blogging or surfing from work...Either wait til you get home, or go by a library if there is no computer available at home. Anonymous posters use tht cover to say unfounded or mean spirited things about folks that they would NEVER say to them face to face. Im all for it.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2010-05-12T14:20:21-06:00

ID

157800

Comment

Perhaps "bravado" was too strong, for I don't mean to imply pretentiousness. Merely that I beleive it is debatable whether using one's real name when expressing an opinion on an Internet forum somehow makes it more credible...or that a person who chooses to use their real name somehow has a more "elevated" opinion than mine. In fact, it seems to me that encouraging, or "elevating," the use of real names (rather than letting it be a matter of choice without incentive) will encourage accusations of bias and personal attacks, opening the door for potential libel issues. You are, of course, free to operate this forum in anyway you see fit. I would only point out that there are many legitimate concerns that some people are not comfortable expressing when one's real name is attached. For example, someone might hold the opinion that downtown Jackson is unsafe after dark due to the presence of gangs, usually consisting of monorities. Another might believe that many private "all white" acadamies in Mississippi are, in reality, methods of legalized segregation. I admit to holding both of these opinions...not that either opinion is outside of debate, for I am a reasonable person who can be convinced to change my opinion...but these are examples of legitimate concerns, which deserve candid conversation, yet consist of a content which, as a private individual, I would not want my real name associated with. I just don't want to see this community forum become watered down. But neither do I want to see it deteriorate to the constant race baiting and mud-slinging found on the Clarion Ledger's forum. So I simply suggest caution before fixing something that, in my opinion, is not broken.

Author

The Eskimo

Date

2010-05-12T14:40:17-06:00

ID

157801

Comment

RE:Kaz "If you have something to say, controversial or otherwise, you should be man or woman enough to claim it. PERIOD. Anything outside of that is cowardice." Well, if I WAS using my real name I would demand you remove that last comment as it is an unfounded personal attack, name calling and character assasination on the part of a regular contributer/empoyee of a public periodical simply because I don't hold the same opinion as you. The Supreme Court agrees with my right of anonymous free speech: *McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:* "Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

Author

The Eskimo

Date

2010-05-12T14:53:38-06:00

ID

157802

Comment

Eskimo. I SO wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Todds post matter of factly. But a stuck pig will squeal. Nothing against you personally. Don't know you. Supreme court rulings and your preferences notwithstanding I live by a different code. Anything I type, Ill repeat to your face. To not claim your opinion or statement is again in my humble opinion cowardice...save for the work issue. But of course I gave an option to that Signed Kamikaze Brad Franklin

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2010-05-12T16:07:50-06:00

ID

157807

Comment

Consideriing you referenced and responded directly to my previous comment regarding "blogging or surfing from work" I find it hard to believe that you "SO wasn't responding to me," nor that my posting had zero influence on the response you claim to have directed at Todd. Perhaps I was presumptious in assuming that an accomplished and successful editorialist/journalist would have read the entire thread of five comments before responding is such an off-the-cuff fashion. Stuck pig, indeed. Rather, I perceive a pierced ego. Your professed code of standing behind your words is, I admit, admirable, despite the fact that it is your job. Perhaps we sould all submit head shots and home phone numbers with our comments in the event any of the undoubtedly tolerant, reasonable members of this forum and others wish to discuss our opinions on a more personal level. I have yet to read any counter argument of my opinion that informed anonymity is preferable to open attribution. I will be the first to admit that open attribution allows for the interpretation of possible bias gleaned from an individual's background (a former KKK member would obviously be biased, etc). Beyond that, is there any benifit to the discussion...or is that enough to warrant potentially shutting off the flow candid opinions that might otherwise be brought to the forefront in an anonymous manner?

Author

The Eskimo

Date

2010-05-12T20:56:22-06:00

ID

157811

Comment

I have yet to read any counter argument of my opinion that informed anonymity is preferable to open attribution. What is "informed" anonymity? I'd say that this issue, like life, has answers that exist on a scale, not in the absolute. Forcing everyone to comment with their full identity available could stifle certain conversations. Allowing for utterly anonymous commenting has proven over and over again to create a high noise-to-signal ratio and seems to encourage trolling, personal attacks and often drowns out lively conversation. Allowing people to "own" their avatars or screen names is a little better; you can still comment during work hours but you begin to at least take responsibility for your online persona. I'm fairly sure that a high percentage of folks would agree that people may be more "honest" if they're anonymous, but that's it's more difficult to judge the credibility of an anonymous person. That's why, in journalism, one might occasionally use an anonymous source (or whistleblower) but we would likewise always work to encourage sources to be on the record and public with their comments. (Your Supreme Court reference is a stretch to apply in this case; it appears the question was whether the woman was violating election laws in Ohio. Note that the First Amendment applies to what the government can and cannot control, at not necessarily your rights in private forums. Just saying.) There's a place for anonymity, but there's a lot of room for abuse, as well. That's why it's best to encourage people to own their comments. We won't force it, just encourage it.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-05-13T10:46:29-06:00

ID

157813

Comment

I meant "informed anonymity" in the sense that the person, while remaining anonymous, is offering valid, thoughtful points relating to the discussion at hand...as opposed to someone who is simply trolling or baiting behind a flas name. Not very clear, I admit, but it was late :) Anyway, I appreciate your response, and especially liked your description of "owning" one's avator. The idea of accepting responibility for one's on-line identity is a very interesting concept...thanks for the food for thought! As to extent of our First Amendment rights regarding Internet forums, whether public or private ...well, that is perhaps a discussion for another day. We'll see how the courts test this issue as the scope of the Internet and social media continues to grow and intertwine with our everyday lives. * PS- It is interesting to note how Wikipedia goes about holding accountable the thousands of (mostly anonymous) on-line identities it hosts without (for the most part) getting sued. Couple of good reads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANONYMOUS & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration

Author

The Eskimo

Date

2010-05-13T12:13:33-06:00

ID

157814

Comment

I agree with the importance of anonymity. If you are a hip-hop artist that screams "F--- George Bush" publicly, you don't have any fear of retribution from an employer or family when you echo similar sentiments online. However if you are a closeted bisexual atheist working for a religious institution in the Bible Belt that provides you with the ability to eat and clothe yourself, anonymity becomes paramount.

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2010-05-13T12:18:56-06:00

ID

157823

Comment

I think it's useful to distinguish between anonymity and pseudonymity. The former is a huge mistake, because it encourages trolling. If you've ever frequented a site that allows purely anonymous posting, you know that many of the most inflammatory comments come from anonymous posters. Pseudonymity has its place. As others have noted, some people would not be able to comment at all if they had to use their real names, due to conflicts with work. I would hate to lose their input. But at least when you're dealing with pseudonyms, users have some accountability for their comments. I don't know who "The Eskimo" is in real life, but I can learn about who he is on this web site. That counts for something. Still, I think there is something to be said for giving more weight to users who post under their real names. Traditional newspapers would not publish letters to the editor without a name and address. In many respects, the internet is our new public square. I think it's important for democracy that people speak as citizens, and that means speaking under your real name.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-05-13T13:58:49-06:00