Free Press?
A Comment on Comments
OPEN PRESS vs. FREE PRESS?
I have been thinking a lot lately about the issue of comments on this blog.
--Should the comments be open to all comers?
--Should those who comment have to identify themselves?
--Should I moderate (which inevitably means censor) comments?
--Should I edit comments before posting them?
--Should I create and publicly announce “ground rules” and apply to all comments?
Because I am a historian, I naturally approach this issue in historical terms. In some ways, the debate is reminiscent of the conflict in the 18th Century between two competing philosophies of journalism. On the one side was the original idea known as an “open press.” On the other side was the newcomer, the idea known as a “free press.”
These sound similar, but there is a key distinction.
The idea of an “open press” can be traced, in America, at least as far back as Ben Franklin. In his famous “Apology for Printers,” Franklin argued that a printer who publishes a newspaper should open its pages to all varieties of opinion. In this way, the community is best served because as long as “truth and error have fair play,” the truth will out. The printer serves as a sort of “common carrier,” like the post office or a stage coach, which is open to all comers on the same terms.
Later in the 18th Century, editors began to take sides in the great issue of the day, independence from England. As they became more and more committed to the rebel or Tory camp, they began to argue that each editor should be free to present a consistent point of view in his pages. Readers could buy several different papers and weigh one against another, but they should not expect to find pro-Tory articles in a rebel paper.
[For examples and discussion, see chapter 1 and chapter 2 of my book, by clicking on the drafts in the column to the right.]
To a great extent, the issue here depends on the frame of reference. Should a reader expect to find a range of views among different papers? Within a single paper? (Or even within each story in each paper?)
Looking at these schools of thought in the setting of the Internet, I am not sure either one is completely adequate. In the case of blogging, it could be argued that essentially everyone is free to post their own thoughts; therefore, everybody is a “printer” and readers should expect to find a range of views by surfing across many sites. On the other hand, what strikes me about the Internet is the possibilities it holds for creating something like a conversation. It is far more dynamic than the hand-powered printing presses of the 18th Century, and we should enjoy the benefits.
With all this in mind, I have decided to allow comments to continue, but I will exercise my prerogative as the moderator to block any comments that I judge to be hurtful, stupid, or mean. Also, no anonymous comments.
Let the conversation resume.
OPEN PRESS vs. FREE PRESS?
I have been thinking a lot lately about the issue of comments on this blog.
--Should the comments be open to all comers?
--Should those who comment have to identify themselves?
--Should I moderate (which inevitably means censor) comments?
--Should I edit comments before posting them?
--Should I create and publicly announce “ground rules” and apply to all comments?
Because I am a historian, I naturally approach this issue in historical terms. In some ways, the debate is reminiscent of the conflict in the 18th Century between two competing philosophies of journalism. On the one side was the original idea known as an “open press.” On the other side was the newcomer, the idea known as a “free press.”
These sound similar, but there is a key distinction.
The idea of an “open press” can be traced, in America, at least as far back as Ben Franklin. In his famous “Apology for Printers,” Franklin argued that a printer who publishes a newspaper should open its pages to all varieties of opinion. In this way, the community is best served because as long as “truth and error have fair play,” the truth will out. The printer serves as a sort of “common carrier,” like the post office or a stage coach, which is open to all comers on the same terms.
Later in the 18th Century, editors began to take sides in the great issue of the day, independence from England. As they became more and more committed to the rebel or Tory camp, they began to argue that each editor should be free to present a consistent point of view in his pages. Readers could buy several different papers and weigh one against another, but they should not expect to find pro-Tory articles in a rebel paper.
[For examples and discussion, see chapter 1 and chapter 2 of my book, by clicking on the drafts in the column to the right.]
To a great extent, the issue here depends on the frame of reference. Should a reader expect to find a range of views among different papers? Within a single paper? (Or even within each story in each paper?)
Looking at these schools of thought in the setting of the Internet, I am not sure either one is completely adequate. In the case of blogging, it could be argued that essentially everyone is free to post their own thoughts; therefore, everybody is a “printer” and readers should expect to find a range of views by surfing across many sites. On the other hand, what strikes me about the Internet is the possibilities it holds for creating something like a conversation. It is far more dynamic than the hand-powered printing presses of the 18th Century, and we should enjoy the benefits.
With all this in mind, I have decided to allow comments to continue, but I will exercise my prerogative as the moderator to block any comments that I judge to be hurtful, stupid, or mean. Also, no anonymous comments.
Let the conversation resume.
Labels: blogging, comments, free press, open press
posted by Chris Daly at 5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home