Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Is the Sacramento Press Fostering Civil Debate -- Or Encouraging Hate Speech?
by Steven Maviglio, published on October 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Storyline: In and Around Sacramento
Since the Sacramento Press made its splash on our city's media scene, I've contributed a dozen or so articles and made somewhere in the neighborhood of 125+ comments. I've written about the best burger in town, the arts, and, of course, politics. I've worn my Sacpress.com T-shirt proudly (thanks guys!) and patronized advertisers. But you won't see my contributions here for awhile because of the Sacramento Press' "terms of use" policy regarding comments. Let me explain.
The Sacramento Press allows comments to be made by the site's visitors with screen names, not their real names (though some, like me, use their real names).
This hides the identity of comment posters, and, as a result, gives them virtual carte blanche to post virtually anything they want. There are some limits, as their should be. And, by and large, most commenters -- with screen names or their actual names -- are respectful.
For example, I have had significant disagreements with commenters when I respond to articles and comments on the strong mayor initiative. There's some good back-and-forth, and we agree to disagree without name-calling or insults or questions about our motivation. It's free speech -- the kind of debate that is good for this website and good for our city.
However, there are some, who typically hide behind screen names, that think name-calling and obscenities are effective ways to make their point. Unfortunately, Sacramento Press, in most instances, allows these comments.
It's not that I have a thin skin -- in my role as a spokesperson for elected officials I've been vilified by the best of them, and actually hung in effigy -- but I believe this website needs to have a policy that promotes civil discourse instead of publishing rants, expletives, and comments not based in truth.
That's the way it usually is in print. When you write a letter to the editor, your real name is used and your identity is confirmed. (That's the way it continues to be in our local newspaper of record, The Sacramento Bee, as well as our alternative newspaper, The Sacramento News& Review.)
Yet when it comes to commenting online, the rules change. No name required. No verification required. And you can write whatever you damn well please for the most part.
Of course, readers can "flag" comments for abuse. But what's abuse in print online, and what's abuse on paper, appear to be two completely things.
And that's a shame.
I don't think it's appropriate for a comment like "don't let the ass hit you on the way out the door" to be published or to be called an endless string of insulting names. But apparently the Sacramento Press (and the Bee) does. "It's free speech," they argue -- especially when it comes to public figures.
There certainly is some truth to that argument. But is this "free speech" appropriate? Should it be "censored"? Should a news-based website "let it all hang out" in the spirit of discussion, hoping that most readers will recognize that juvenile name-calling and inappropriate language is just that, making the comments less effective?
It's my sense that insults, name-calling, and hate speech don't contribute to civil dialogue, much like the ranting of right-wing radio hosts. Sure, it's great entertainment (for some) and boosts the page clicks for advertisers. But is it a good thing for our community? I think not.
I believe the Sacramento Press should find a balance between pure "free speech" and what's appropriate for publication. So far it hasn't.
Managing editor David Watts Barton wrote about this subject not too long ago (sorry, can't find the link!). And it's a tough job to find that appropriate balance. But it has to be done.
I love this site, but if contributors and those who comment have permission to insult and heckle, it's not the kind of forum I want to contribute to. I am hopeful the editors of this site develop a policy that demands respect of all of us who read, write, and contribute. And I can't wait to read the comments -- unless, of course, there's insults and name calling involved :).
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
PS - I'm a user-namer!
What you have written is jaw-droppingly divorced from the reality of your own behavior here on SacPress. Any one who recalls or researches your articles and comments will see the truth.
When I first encountered you on SacPress, I made every effort to be polite and treat you with the respect due a familiar professional journalist and mayoral spokesman. Your antagonistic behavior finally made that impossible. I wondered -- and asked you -- why you would want to represent yourself and the mayor in such a negative and nasty way.
The Strong Mayor Initiative campaign, from the beginning, has been nothing but buzzwords and talking points. Proponents immediately criticize and attack anyone who questions or challenges those talking points. Proponents immediately criticize the public representatives who initiated an appropriate public process of review, assessment and public participation.
SMI proponents on SacPress write articles and comments that contain the buzzwords and disinformation, then spend most of their energies attacking the City Council, the Charter Review Committee, the public and anyone on SacPress more interested in the actual issue -- and facts -- than SMI invective.
One -- who turns out to be an associate of yours -- regular detractor on SacPress has a comment up, going into great detail, again attacking those perceived as opponents of the SMI. I read it just before your parody piece appeared and wondered, "Why have they spent so much time attacking others on SacPress, rather than presenting and promoting their own initiative?"
Not a moment later, here you are claiming to be angelic and worthy of announcing that your delicate sensibilities have been maligned.
The truth is, you and other SMI proponents don't have more than your talking points and buzzwords and bullying to convince the public to vote for Kevin Johnson's power grab.
And, of course, the Kool Aid. After the shameless farce you have written here, it appears the magical elixir induces stunning hubris, shared by the mayor and his team.
BTW: I go by StevieGee on here but my name is Steven Grass.
Note to Mr. Maviglio: If you can't stand the heat get out of my city government.
Love this: "Note to Mr. Maviglio: If you can't stand the heat get out of my city government."
Remarkable how much dependence the mayor's policies, campaign, power grab, staff, "volunteers," depend on Perception Management. Since it's more difficult for them to control on SacPress, even SM's faux protest above is a sleight of hand, a conceited deceit of masterful proportions.
An example of this verbal subterfuge was at the kickoff for the SMI petition drive. A brief handout contained little in the way of information, for those who thought it was an open community meeting to hear Johnson speak on his proposal for Strong Mayor.
The first page was a collection of talking points.
The third page was "Frequently Asked Questions."
Which was a cut and paste of the first page of talking points, in the form or questions and answers.
In addition to flagging duplicates, spam, or offensive items, we welcome and encourage anyone to send comments or stories that may be against our terms of use to support@sacramentopress.com.
Welcome to the Internet. A world of anonymous posters, trollers, and a few legit folks. This is the beauty of the Internet and also its curse.
I ran a small online forum for a while and I've seen the worst of it (from well-intentioned people). Censorship is never a goal but in many cases it is up to the community to set the policy. Sac Press is a company, they have advertisers. This is how they pay the bills (AFAICT). I can see why they might want to censor, but what they also have to worry about is turning their audience/community away (no audience, no money). If I'm censored, I'll be much less likely to contribute my opinions and "stories" to them (no writers, no money).
BTW, I remember talking to Ben about this very topic (granted it was a year or so ago) and there are some important legal considerations regarding censoring their audience.
A lot of the old school politics and good ol boys clubs don't work on the Internet. There is so much more transparency when you have the world at your fingertips. What was the saying about it being hot in the kitchen again? The longer you are around the thicker your skin gets.
BTW, if we had censorship how would we find out about fraud being committed in our very own city goverment? I guess folks could always start leaking to wikileaks.org.
My 2¢
Scott
Are you accusing Sacramento Press of tolerating or encouraging hate speech as it is legally defined?
"Accountability" = "dictatorship"
"Modernization" = "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
"Crime" = "in the eye of the beholder"
"Hate speech" = "anything that questions or challenges the dictator"
"Censorship" = "Maviglio not getting to control other people's free speech"
Hypocrisy = Maviglio wriiting "I believe this website needs to have a policy that promotes civil discourse instead of publishing rants, expletives, and comments not based in truth."
You first, Steve!! Go for it. We look forward to your illustrious return and civil, fact based offerings.
Mr. Maviglio participated in most of the behavior that he says is causing him to leave this site.
Speaking from my own personal experience, he made accusations about me that were untrue. I asked repeatedly for him to back up his statements with any kind of evidence but he failed to do so.
As the mayor's behavior/actions are increasingly drawing criticism/concern for more and more Sacramento residents, it definitely is much easier to bail then to stay.
I find it hard to believe that someone who has a long career of working for politicans such as our Republican governor, would be so distraught at some people's actions that he chooses to stop participating in a public forum. This shouldn't be completely shocking - Mr Maviglio was one of the people who met behind closed doors (without any imput from residents) to draft the Strong Mayor Initiative.
This is just another example in an increasingly long list of concerns I have about Kevin Johnson and the people he surrounds himself with...
So what lesson is learned here? When there is disagreement what do you do? Stay and try to share your viewpoint or leave and point your finger at people and accuse them of acting the same way you have?
I should not have expected any less.
Power to the people.
I'm not afraid to participate in democracy; Sacramento and it's future are too important.
That's SM's M.O. I remember when he was doing it to you, obviously unfounded, yet insistent. Perhaps he's upset because it doesn't work as well on a smaller board like this one. The slime of false rumor and innuendo doesn't stick as well.
I find also it works out best so a problem does not hang up forever in time is by communiting it out. communication and more communication is the great solvent. confront and handle and all will resolve. Your on the right track Larry as far as finger pointing. finger pointing equals transgressions on the same subject or person your pointing the finger at.
Well, according to you it hasn't. What The Sacramento Press may find appropriate for online publication and what others may find appropriate for publication could be two different things. When you post on their site, you're playing by their rules -- and perhaps their way of playing the game is to allow for multiple perspectives.
You have to understand that when you provide for an open and free forum of communication, comments like "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" will pop up, even IF the publication in question doesn't allow for these types of comments. In the ten or so months that I've known the folks who work behind-the-scenes (and often, in front of the camera too) at the Sacramento Press, I can tell you I've seen multiple instances where they have had to remind comment posters NOT to make personal attacks against a particular publisher, especially when the comment makes little to no contribution to any kind of dialogue between the commenter and the publisher, or the commenter and other commenters.
With that said, I feel you're wrong in accusing The Sacramento Press of allowing comments that are detrimental personal attacks against a particular author while offering little to no value otherwise. As a publication -- online or print -- grows, the attraction of various kinds of people -- including "trolls," as they're commonly referred to -- will undoubtedly be visible, and occasionally comments will slip through the cracks only to be discovered months, or years later, or sometimes not at all.
I think you're making a poor choice in leaving a forum that provides free and open communication simply because a handful of users disagree with your opinion. If you expected The Sacramento Press to be a political megaphone where politicians, and their volunteers, can preach why their ideas are right and everyone else's are wrong, expect that there also exists a fluid, free and public forum for others to tell you why they're right and you're wrong.
What is becoming a noticeable pattern in the mayor's behaviour, and that of his 'followers' (for want of a more acerbic and accurate term) is a repeated whine of hypocrisy to the point of pathological passive/aggression, in that the rhetoric they voice disdain for is precisely what they have dished out to others, including me, always crying foul when it's shoved right back in their collective faces -- with a bit more wit and aplomb.
As I, and others, have expressed ad nauseum, it is not 'hate' to question a pretender to power -- it's just good citizenship, especially when a supposed leader has a rather questionable past, and whose present acts are for the most part less than honorable.
Oh, and about the username thing -- I rather like mine. I've been using this name for two decades. It's 'googleable', if more than a bit notorious, and very precisely describes my character, rushing around Northern California in my blue bomb Bmer, and it gives urchins like this piece's author just that much more to gripe about in their mundanity...
I have not uttered a word or posted a comment here, or frankly anywhere, that I wouldn't state face to face to the recipient -- in fact, I think it would give me considerable satisfaction to do so.
Bless your heart, sweetie...
Suggestions for "a more acerbic and accurate term:"
1. Chutzpack
2. St. HUBRIS
Or regarding "a repeated whine of hypocrisy to the point of pathological passive/aggression:"
3. Republicans
Main Entry: chutz·pah
Function: noun
Etymology: Yiddish khutspe, from Late Hebrew ḥuṣpāh
: supreme self-confidence : nerve, gall; synonyms see temerity
I too find some of the comments offensive (and downright libelous, oftentimes), but I support the Sac Press for erring on the side of openness.
I think the flagging works in the case of true "hate speech"--which happens only rarely on Sac Press, more often (IMO) on Sac Bee. Definitely, we see "hateful" speech, but not hate speech, as William B points out above.
While my inner fascist would love to see them ban/censure some commenters, my inner democrat (little d) knows it's wrong.
I agree that people who are consistently rude shouldn't have a forum here, but once that becomes a forum policy it becomes very difficult to draw the line, and set who it is drawn for. There are other mechanisms in place to warn folks about the trolls (like people who get consistent thumbs downs in posts). I would also refer you to the comment above by Casey Kirk.
There are hecklers everywhere, and in your role as a political consultant I'm sure you have encountered plenty in real life. I'm sure that you will be able to adapt to the online world of public forums in no time.
While I don't always *agree* with you, I appreciate your perspective on things.
SacPress is one place that the mayor's team can come and try to dazzle folks with celebrity worship and disinformation and it doesn't succeed. The talking points, so many based on nothing or nothing but false information, are challenged and corrected here.
The fact that SM is pretending that his complaint is broader than not being able to control what people say about Kevin Johnson and the SMI on SacPress AND the fact that he is trying to smear informed citizens and the community-oriented SacPress with the term "Hate Speech" (and the thinly veiled accusation of racism) reveals just more of his Macchiaviglian, propagandizing dirty tricks.
It's kind of you to give him the benefit of the doubt and to address the broader question of interactions on SacPress. Casey has provided a solid reply, including contact information. She also recently commented in another article in answer to concerns about personal attacks.
Those who are seeking factual information about the Strong Mayor Initiative are not doing it because they "don't like Kevin Johnson." That's something Maviglio and others here try to claim.
If there was more to the SMI and the campaign to change the Constitution of Sacramento to suit Kevin Johnson's dictatorial management style, Maviglio and others would be able to articulate that.
Instead, all they do is negative campaigning, invective and then claim to be targets of exactly what they are perpetrating.
On the other hand, I have noticed that Mr. Maviglio seems to have taken his ball and gone home on this discussion.
"For example, I have had significant disagreements with commenters when I respond to articles and comments on the strong mayor initiative. There's some good back-and-forth, and we agree to disagree without name-calling or insults or questions about our motivation."
Id like to see a little more "Just the facts mam" and a little less "opinion," character assasination and degenerative ranting to a dead end disagreement. This only fosters paranoia,disconnect and seclusion and very little problem solving.
Long story short we in the US of A are bickering our way to last place in all catagories of good living.
The whole SMI thing has been one ragged lie after another launched by KJ and his SAG group who brought this measure forward covertly interested only in outcomes sought by their benefactors rather than the community as a whole. It was intended to do so, long before the election was over, and no doubt withheld from press and public purview because its idea is odious to common sensibilities of thoughtful people in this town, especially given EVERYTHING that has emerged about KJ's character and that of his organizations.
Opinion sheds light on 'facts' if done so rationally and honestly. There has been NOTHING honest about the SMI campaign -- it is indeed a power grab, it has been demonstrated to have significant legal and constitutional flaws, and it has divided rather than united our city council, its origins have been covert, and its legitimacy in its signature gathering process may very well become a question put by the California AG's office. These are 'FACTS', not one of which emerged from KJ's camp, all of which emerged from 'bickering'.
They sound simular but are quite different. Wasting time, puting ones rightousness ahead of a solution all the while not really listening is bickering.
Hoping and waiting for gods will? well many an org/nation/family has crumbled applying this old formula.
There may be more agreement here than not. Are we talking about in general, or specific to dickerers like SM whose game is " puting ones rightousness ahead of a solution all the while not really listening"?
See. SM has not " turned his back and walked away." He hasn't won anything. You're right, HIS silence is deafening, because he's twisting in the wind reading these comments while clipping his toenails and telling himself he'll find a way to turn it all around. Good luck.
SM has disappeared from SacPress before and shown up with new, iller tactics or other puppets to deliver the talking points.
The last word has already been delivered elsewhere by Rhonda Erwin: "The only thing transparent about this is we can see through you."