Capturing the Scenic Schuylkill on Film

One of the finalists in the "Wild & Scenic" category is from Pottstown.
This photo is called "Two Bucks Hiding in the Woods."

Regular Digital Notebook readers may remember a July post in which photographers were invited to submit their favorite photos of the Schuylkill River.

Well people did just that and now it's time to judge the entries and you are the judge.

Sponsored by the Schuylkill Action Network, the entries can be viewed by clicking here.

You can vote more than once, but only once every 24 hours.

And one finalist, in the "Tip-Top-Tap" category
is from Phoenixville.

Winners will receive a $300 gift provided by one of three sponsors.

These include the Philadelphia Water Department, Calumet Photo, and REI.  

Other prizes include $100 gift cards for second place and $50 gift cards for honorable mention. 

The categories include Wild & Scenic, Fun on the Schuylkill, and Tip Top Tap.

“Many people only see the river from cars while driving over bridges or past refineries,” said Tom Davidock, Schuylkill Action Network coordinator at the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary.  

“What they don’t see are the forests, fun seekers, and wildlife; all of it made possible by water clean enough to quench the thirst of most Philadelphians.”

A Milestone

Well, it happened a few days ago, but I'm just getting around to writing about it now.

At this point in time (Monday) most of you are probably trying to hold your homes together as 'Frankenstorm' rolls through the eastern seaboard.

Few are likely to be checking the local blog, so it's perhaps fitting that I choose today to announce that I've reached one of the goals I set for myself when I started this blogging experiment.

Several days ago, The Digital Notebook topped the 50,000 hits mark.

Compared to other much more popular blogs, that's not a terribly high mark. My step-mother runs a blog about adoption issues (Birth Mother, First Mother Forum) and I think she hits that mark about twice a week.

But for a blog dedicated to small pieces of news in a small town, I consider it respectable.

I had set several goals for this enterprise when I started, and, actually, this one was the last, and the first to be achieved.

The 50,000 views milestone, apparently

somewhere in western Massachusetts.
Who knew?

As I watched the stats, experimenting with getting exposure and what worked and what didn't, I realized that 50,000 within a year might be achievable.

And so it was.

Thanks to all of you who have read the blog up to this point, all six of you.

By the way, I configured the settings so that my own views don't count as hits, so I hope none of you thought I was sitting up my attic late at night, obsessively clicking on the blog over and over to drive up the hit count.

So one of my other goals has yet to be achieved, but we're close.

It turns out that 365 posts is going to be a lot. 

I wanted to post every single day for a year and now, having revealed that, Hurricane Sandy will probably interfere.

That meant writing things ahead of time so, for those few days I'm allowed to leave The Mercury office and attempt a vacation, the blog would continue on.

With this post, I'll be up to 318, so we'll see if I make it 365.

The third and final goal remains unchanged and both achieved and unachieved for as long as I do this.

As I wrote on Nov. 9. 2011 in my first post:

"As anyone who has been following this newspaper business knows, space in the paper is not what it once was.

And although space on the Internet is theoretically limitless, experience has taught me that, what with templates, oversight and ranking, that space on The Mercury web site is not.

As you might expect, a lot of information crosses my desk on a regular basis and, as you also might expect, not all of it gets in the paper or on the web site for the reasons I've just explained.

So, this experiment is to see if I can't give some of those orphaned press releases, announcements and overheard tid-bits some exposure on space I (nominally) control."

So the experiment goes (boldly?) on, but before I do, allow me to offer a particular thanks to some people.

Firstly, to on-line editor Eileen Faust, who got me started and who answered all the endless technical questions I continue to have. "How do I make this caption jump to a second line? How do I unpublish something? How come this post is so boring?"

Diane, left, and Eileen

Her patience continues to amaze me and I would be lost without it.

Secondly, to community engagement editor Diane Hoffman, who helped me realize the larger reach of bloggers working together and that I don't have to be the 'lone wolf' all the time.

Nancy

Thirdly, to Mercury Editor Nancy March, who doesn't get too miffed when I work on the blog during work hours, particularly given that many of the posts often end up as stories in the paper. (She also gently reminds me when my posts are getting too long-winded.)

Fourthly, and this is a big one, to John Armato, the Pottstown School District's Community Relations Director.

Not only did he realize and capitalize on the opportunity my blog presents to the school district -- a daily post hungry for information, any information, it can post -- but he also inadvertently helped me to achieve this 50,000 mark.

John speaking last month after being named

Rotary Club's Person of the Year.

You see not only does John supply me with endless bits, pieces and photos about the good things going on in the school district -- it's not ALL bad you know -- but he also helps distribute them.

He does this by e-mailing links to posts about the district to his large list of staff and community contacts. To be sure, his motivation is, no doubt, to spread the good word about the school district.

But when he does this, I can practically watch the stats for that day's post sky-rocket.

If you don't believe me, take a look to the right at the most popular posts. Nearly all of them involve the school district, including one -- the one suggesting Rupert Principal Matt Moyer would look good in a purple Mohawk -- that continues to top the list months after it ceased being relevant.

And of course, last but certainly not least, thanks to all you readers who have continued to return. It would be pointless without you.

Well, so much for the honor roll.

See you out there in cyber-space.

Why Does Religion Make Everyone So Uptight?

Religion is a very touchy subject here in America

I had an interesting experience Friday.

With our web editor Eileen Faust out of the office on what I can only assume was a well-deserved vacation day, I was asked by Nancy March, the editor, to pitch in posting links to stories from our web page onto our Facebook page.

I was happy to do this and, as I often do, tried to randomize the postings and "mix it up" a little bit.

So, in addition to posting the usual car crash and shake-your-head-in-disbelief police news, accompanied by our never-ending American Legion baseball coverage, I threw a little entertainment and opinion up on our wall as well.

That included the day's editorial, the day's syndicated column and the day's letter to the editor which, uh oh, suggested that today's children would be better off if they had more Bible teachings in their life.

What followed surprised even an agnostic like myself.

Two of our Facebook readers objected, as is certainly their right, saying such letters belonged in "a church bulletin" not in newspaper opinion pages.

Fair enough.

They then went further to suggest that if we received similar letters touting the benefits of the religious teachings from the Q'uran or the Torah, that we would not publish them.

I'll confess that got my hackles up because, were we to have received such letters, I like to think we would have run them. But since we, sadly, don't receive such letters there was no way to disprove this charge.

After all, it is one of history's best-sellers.

These two folks seemed to feel that publishing the letter was part of a disturbing trend toward intolerance of non-Christian religions in America, particularly in the media. It's a concern that I think is valid, but not one I believe will be resolved by stifling opinion, but rather by exploring it.

Please note that almost as often as one sees or hears complaints about intolerance by Christians, one sees or hears complaints by Christians that people say unpleasant thing about them. And so it goes, but I think its fair to say there is little need to worry that Christianity is going to be run out of America by an angry mob any time soon.

Nevertheless, I had to be careful seeing as I am not the editor and cannot speak for editorial policy.

However, I also know that to many people, particularly in Pottstown, for better or worse I represent The Mercury so I wanted to represent in our defense.

I tried to make the case that, as I saw it, this letter was no different than any other opinion people choose to express on the letters to the editor page. I posted it to Facebook because that's what was in the paper that day and I like to post our published opinions on Facebook and get a discussion going.

(That is what we are charged to do  with our sparkly digital strategy. Frankly, it's what we've always done, now we just do it through different means or, as we say in the digital world, "different platforms.")

I strongly suspect I did not convince these two objectors, but I am also cognizant that such discussions are read by many more people than just the participants and I did not like letting the charge that we would be biased in our letter publishing going unanswered; even if the two people disagreeing with me were unlikely to be persuaded by my defense.

Of interest to me was the observation that one of the objectors had never seen The Mercury post one of these letters on its Facebook page before. That may be true as posting our stories to Facebook is not my day-to-day job.

I didn't give it much thought at the time I did it, but these two seemed to think it was the beginning of a dangerous trend that letters like, no stranger to our letters page, were now showing up on our Facebook as well.

This would seem to suggest a deep ideological divide between those who read these letters in our print edition without batting an eye, and those who scan our offerings on Facebook and pick and choose what they want to read.

They may well be right about that.

(It has certainly not escaped our observation that some of our Facebook friends are not shy about commenting on an article they have not bothered to click through and read. But I don't think that was the case here.)

And when I suggested they write us a letter to our editor complaining about this trend or praising the values of other religions to test their thesis, they both demurred, leading me to contemplate how many fewer actual signed letters to the editor we now receive at the paper. It's odd to me that people are willing to express their opinions under their names on Facebook, but shy away from putting pen to paper and doing the same thing in print.

The fact that it doesn't make much sense to me doesn't make it any less true.

Nevertheless, the emotion stirred up by a religious-themed letter posted on Facebook made me sit up and take notice.

As someone who was not raised in a religion and does not practice one, I nevertheless find myself endlessly curious about them and fascinated by all organized religions.

I believe they fill a need humans have for group ritual and for a framework of belief in which comfort and answers in dealing with life's more difficult questions can be found and are obviously shared by peers.

Not being much of a joiner, I have preferred to find answers to my questions on my own. But that has not dampened my curiosity about this vital aspect of human nature or my respect for those who choose that path. To me, the ability to take something on faith without any proof is a wonder and something that tells me that person enjoys a human ability I largely lack. I respect even if I can't duplicate it.

The Crusades: Violence BY
and against Christians.

My readings in history so far have indicated organized religion to be a force not to be underestimated.

It can be the engine of great positive social change, such as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s or the Abolition movement of the 1820s and 1830s.

It has also been the engine behind centuries of religious wars (the Crusades), persecution of the "different" (the Salem Witch Trials), and even a period of torture so heinous it demanded its own period in history, (the Spanish Inquisition).

Even today, religious disagreements are at the heart of many Middle Eastern conflicts between different Muslim sects.

I gave this book four stars in my
Goodreads review.

(By the way, allow me to recommend an excellent book for a broad brush overview of the history of Islam and its impact on history -- "Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes" by Tamim Ansary.)

Harder to measure in history books is the effect various religions have had on individuals which are, I imagine, no less profound for those individuals then they are for their profound effect on the larger world.

But religion remains a touchy subject for us Americans.

Many people, myself at times, bristle at the militant Christianity that pervades the current political culture and certain media outlets. At other times, I just tell myself they're being very effective at getting their message out.

My wife rolls her eyes when, like I heard Chris Rock confess on NPR's Fresh Air recently, I watch TV preachers and marvel at the spectacle. (I'm particular to Joel Osteen. I can't seem to get enough of someone telling a stadium full of people that Jesus wants them to be rich and their eagerness to believe its true.Who knows, maybe it is.)

I did not review Joel's works.

But as ironic and contradictory as I might find that, I don't equate it with all Christians and I certainly don't think these expressions of religious opinion need to be curtailed in any way.

After all, many of my favorite people in Pottstown are preachers or ministers. I have found them, as a group, to be the ones most likely to be kind, understanding, accepting, genuinely concerned about others and -- most important of all in this town which can never seem to get out from under its own history -- effective.

Although many of this country's founders were not the avid Christians they are often portrayed as being, they did nonetheless understand the need for religion and fully expected it to be practiced with fervor in this new country they had created. (I suspect they would be amazed to hear some of the debates we have about religion today).

Their primary concern about religion was that it not be endorsed or supported financially by the government. Other than that, have at it. Jefferson in particular wrote about the freedom to practice no religion at all.

A letter from George Washington

(In fact, if you can make time before Sept. 30, you can visit the National Museum of American Jewish History on Independence Mall in Philadelphia and see a letter George Washington wrote to a Rhode Island Synagogue as part of an exhibit called "To Bigotry: No Sanction.")

The First Amendment gives the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, and talk about it as you see fit.

Now if that means you want to show up at military funerals and carry signs that say "God hates gays," well most people are not going to happy about that. And many won't shrink from expressing an opinion that such actions give Christianity a bad name; to put it mildly.

But I would shy from saying they should be prevented from saying it, only ridiculed and vigorously opposed.

Similarly, people say we need to keep The Bible out of our schools, and I agree as far as preaching it as a faith is concerned.

However, teaching the history of and familiarity with one of the cornerstones of western civilization seems like something that should be part of every American education. I'm sad it was not part of mine.

So I suppose what this all came down to is the choice by the newspaper to publish or not publish religious opinions.


Hailing from the suburbs of New York City, the capital of liberal thinking if ever there was one, and having run a newspaper there, I do not recall seeing many such letters in our papers there or us publishing any.

But as I get older, I think that may have been a mistake.

I was initially surprised when I came to Pottstown to see that The Mercury published them, but as I got to the know the community better I realized most readers are not offended. They simply agree, disagree or couldn't care less.

And I've similarly come to believe that such expressions of belief need be treated no differently than those favoring a particular candidate or a favorite pie recipe.

This is not to say I equate those things (no angry letters please), but to say that people express opinions about things they have strong feelings about.

And certainly I can understand that someone who feels they have found the answers to the questions that may have plagued them all their life, or see clear solutions to the world's problems in a particular text or teaching, are going to want to share that and tell the world "hey guys, it's right here."

And that's where the newspaper comes in. We want to offer people a place where those views can be shared and amplified.

Certainly, we must exercise judgement.

On the same day I was in my back and forth with our two Facebook readers about religious letters, I was issuing warnings and deleting violent threats and profane comments from readers on the same Facebook page outraged by our story of two men accused of an admittedly outrageous crime in a child sex sting operation.

But I just have a hard time seeing religious opinions in that category.

Of course those that filled with hate or endorse violence against others will be provided the same exercise of judgement as such statements made without the religious additive.

But as I wrote to the two Facebook commenters, I saw the letter largely as "expressing an opinion that primarily suggested our children would be helped by learning 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.' The fact that the letter's author believes the best path to those attributes is through the Bible is, of course, a matter of opinion."

But of course, that's just my opinion. 

What do you think?

Will Mercury commenters have to 'Face' the music? That's the 'Buzz'

I've just returned from the studios of WBZH where Mercury Editor Nancy March and I had a very enjoyable conversation with host Dave Devlin on the subject of the day -- anonymous comments on our web site.

During that conversation, Nancy revealed that JRC CEO John Paton has designated The Mercury as one of the company papers/web sites at which using Facebook as the method to sign in for comments will be tried.

Apparently that happened late last week so, since it does not seem to be a secret any more, I'm announcing it here. Remember, you read it here first (even if you heard it first on "The Buzz" as WBZH is calling itself).

First, a whole host of caveats.

1) We have not figured out how to do this technically so, if it is workable, it will likely be a while before it gets implemented.

2) On that note, there are other technology issues going on now with JRC, some new computer operating systems and the like, so it may be a looooooong while before it gets implemented. In the meantime, we will be stuck with the current system of moderated commenting.

3) And this is probably the most important, this is an ongoing effort. This is an experiment. Just as our sister paper in Connecticut, The Torrington Register-Citizen, is experimenting with Disqus software, which allows but does not require identified log-ins, we will try Facebook here.

The company is looking for the best method.You are all, quite literally, our "Community Media Lab."

What's become evident, to me at least, in all this discussion is that the goal is more more important than the method.

As I told Dave on this morning's broadcast, the goal I would like to see us pursue is whatever method works best to host, generate, encourage, foster and enliven civil, meaningful discussion on issues which face our town, our region and our nation.

To me, provided the user interface is user-friendly and open to the broadest possible number of people, the method is immaterial.

I don't care if that turns out to be Facebook, Disqus or some software I've never heard of (and that's a lot). What matters to me and, I hope, to you, is the result: a better quality of intelligent, thoughtful, respectful  discourse that sticks to the issue at hand.

Some have said using Facebook won't work.

And they may be right.

If it turns out to be the case, hopefully we will try something else.

We are feeling our way here folks, trying to impose some kind of newspaper and community standard on a medium that has, since its inception, been the wild west in terms of content and behavior.

I hope it matters to our readers and our community that we're trying.

What we are NOT trying to do, silence specific people or voices, only to develop a standard of behavior that allows those viewpoints to be presented and discussed without feeling like you have to wash your hands when you're done.

What we ARE trying to do is elevate the discussion we host and hopefully, as a result, our community, to a more productive tone and place.

I can promise you two things: Whatever we settle on, our path there will be transparent and the method will be imperfect.

What we don't need is any more of THIS.

Every method, phone-ins, e-mail, web posting, moderated web posting, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, smoke signals, carrier pigeon has its downsides.

And whatever we use, some people won't like it.

Some will tell us that we'll lose participants as a result of the change, and that is most certainly both true and regrettable.

But one question I haven't seen asked (or answered) yet is who have we already lost because of what goes on there now?

Are we satisfied with what goes on there now? I'm not. And I think a lot of other people are not either.

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and maybe this whole thing goes full circle and we end up right back where we are now. At least we'll know then that like Winston Churchill's view of Democracy as a form of government, "it is the absolute worst, except for all the others."

For now, I think I feel safe in saying it is our goal to advocate for whatever method or combination of methods provides a result that our community (and our newspaper) can be proud of; a forum where people go to get and express new ideas and viewpoints without fear of retaliation, intimidation or outright bullying.

I should say at this point that I don't think we would have been chosen for this experiment if it were not for the engagement of our readers; whose comments and involvement in this discussion helped to raise our profile with top management.

I think I can safely say, whatever position any of our commenters took on this, everyone wanted something better than we have now.

And for that, I thank you.

I should also say that this initiative is specific to the web.

During our conversation with Dave this morning, Nancy strove to differentiate between Sound Off, which involves people calling in on telephones and their comments being printed in the paper, and what goes on at our web site.

This potential change to Facebook WILL NOT affect people's ability to call Sound Off and leave comments and for them to be printed. What it DOES have the potential to affect is the comments that get posted beneath where Sound Off is published on our web site.


So we'll see where it all goes.

Once it becomes more definite and we have a likely implementation schedule, we will publish notice in the newspaper, on-line and certainly right here.

(In the shameless promotion department, I remind everyone that can follow me on Twitter @PottstownNews)

The Anonymity Debate, Part III: In Opposition

For some people the matter of taking personal responsibility for what you say is a simple matter of integrity.

You say what you want to say to someone’s face, and damn the consequences, or don’t say it at all.

But 47 years in, I’ve managed to figure out that life is not simple.

If several years ago, for example, I had written some of the things I have most recently about the company that owns The Mercury, it’s flaws (read our web site) and our attempts to improve, I would have been looking for another job.

Living the rule of simplicity, I would have had to live with those consequences; but so too would my family. What if we lost our house after I lost my job because I had to stand up and declare the emperor had no clothes?

What if I couldn’t find another? What if my son couldn’t go to college because I had to be a big shot? Then they would have been living with the consequences of actions they never took.

Luckily, our new leadership does not mind a little dirty laundry being on display, especially when it means input on how we could improve our product in what any master of understatement would call a “very challenging market for newspapers.”

Which means that although I am encouraged now to post blog posts like this with my name attached; and to engage our community in a matter of some complexity, I was not always free to do so.

All of which is to say although I now live by a rule of signing my name to all Internet correspondence, what’s good for this goose is not good for every gander.

But this is a strange way to introduce a post in opposition to anonymity.

That’s because the problem is that as high sounding as all the above sounds, the reality here on the ground is that the anonymous posting on The Mercury web site is often venal, often uninformed, and much too often cruel simply because anonymity allows it to be so.

Thus our dilemma and our third and (who knows? last?) installment on this subject, in which our readers of a certain mind set “Sound Off” about the need to stand up and be counted when sharing your opinion.

Unlike yesterday’s post, which contained a swirl of nuance about why anonymity, while sometimes regrettable, is ultimately preferred, those who oppose hiding behind a fake name have two basic reasons:

1)      It is dishonorable.

2)      It has the potential to do real harm.

(Curiously, a few of them posted, by accident no doubt, without using their full names.)

Reason 1: Say it to Their Face

There was no shortage of readers, many of them commenting on The Mercury’s Facebook page, who took this stand-up view.

And although this discussion was begun and primarily remains about anonymity on-line, many readers also took the liberty of extending the discussion to our “Sound Off” column, in which people phone in their complaints or, occasionally, praise and advice and we publish them in the good old fashioned newspaper.

(Although, it's worth noting that many of the worst abuses of anonymity occur beneath the web site posting of the Sound Off comments.)

One of them was Ron Downie, former Pottstown School Board member and Pottstown Borough Council member and currently the head of the Pottstown Borough Authority.

“You should be ashamed of yourself, or better yet, The Mercury should have been ashamed of itself for a long time, every since Sound Off started,” he wrote to me in an e-mail, softening the blow by adding that  what the world needs is more blogs like the one my father writes. 

(What can I say? Telling it like (we think) it is must run in the family.)

Fred Remelius, a member of the Pottsgrove School Board, weighed in on the same subject on Facebook: “I have found that the majority of comments in the Pottstown Mercury’s Sound Off section are either downright mean, degrading, rude, unproductive, or simply display a complete lack of any factual knowledge of the topic being discussed,” he opined. “Reasonable people rarely comment in the Sound Off.”

“Fred, I could not agree more,” Jeff Bush posted on Facebook. “I feel the section puts Pottstown in a bad light. It has no journalistic value. If you have something of value to say, put it in writing and sign your name.”

Charles Zerr of Douglassville posted, “If you don’t have the guts to say it and show who you are. Then don’t bother.”

 “I know for a fact about 80% of the people who post these mean spirited, insulting, and in many cases racist rants would not do it if they had to use their real names,” a poster named J Stew wrote on our web page.

“They act tough here but would be mortified if their friends, family, and co-workers saw what they write here. They use forums like this to cowardly hide while spewing vile insults and hate that they would never say to someone face to face.”

Back on Facebook, Jeni Alexander of Sanatoga noted: “I think when it comes to news you should have to post your name -- it makes people responsible for their words.”

Pottstown resident Matt Diehl replied: “If I could rephrase part of your earlier comment Jeni? It makes people accountable for their words. Now, if we could only get them to be accountable for their actions.”

He added, “Technology is allowing us to be lazy, and less accountable than ever before. I agree with the first comment posted by Charles, but wanted you to also be aware that just because it's on Facebook doesn't mean it's not fake.”

He concluded by offering an anecdote often attributed to Dr. Seuss: “Be who you are, and say what you feel. Because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.”

Reason 2: The Easy Ambush

One of the responses posted on my blog gave the perfect example of this concern:

“If you recall, some time back we were downright slandered by an anonymous poster on The Mercury,” wrote Cristian DeSeta.

“Not only did it cost us reputation, it cost us time and money to undo. All because an anonymous poster took advantage of the system to spread a batch of lies in an attempt to drive us out of town. The result of such action is that business is venerable here. The reality is that an anonymous poster could put someone out of business in such a delicate economy simply by spreading untruths and fear.

“A publication may be concerned when eyeballs drop from page views, but what will they say when businesses are driven from town by anonymous posters and stop advertising altogether?”

Others worried about people who outright lie under the cover of anonymity. (That would never happen right?):

“I believe that real names should be posted. Not just in the comment replies but in the Sound off phone in section as well,” Dan Dulnikowski wrote on our web site.

“Why? A while back the Mercury removed my comments when I called out a phony ‘Ex-Marine.’ Any real Marine knows that you are never an ‘ex’ Marine. But the poser who I called out complained I was abusive in calling him out. My comments were censored, even though they contained no profanity or abuse. When you are anonymous, you can say anything, with no fear of being called out. So, slander, bold faced lies, and personal attacks are easy. So is assuming the hard earned title of US Marine when you don't deserve it. That is my opinion, and my name is Dan Dulnikowski, Marine serving in a now, non-active duty capacity.”

Dewi Gallagher Wilson of Pottstown put it even more plainly: “Because people lie. I know this one guy posting claims that he wont work for under $250,000 a year, he owns this and that…yeah right, show your name and you will get called out on it.”

Perhaps the person to whom the most thanks (or blame) can be attributed for this long discussion is Julian Francis, husband of Amy Francis, a former Pottstown School Board member and candidate and a sometime spokesperson for the Occupy Pottstown movement.

It was this latter title which earned Amy some Internet vitriol in two news stories I wrote about the event, one announcing its arrival and another on the event itself.

Rather than just complain to neighbors, or call in to Sound Off, Julian took it upon himself to write a letter to John Paton, CEO of Journal Register Co., which owns The Mercury, to protest the treatment she received on our web page.

His letter and Paton’s response, in case you haven’t seen it posted elsewhere in this discussion, are posted here in their entirety:

The subject line of the email was "Why I No Longer Subscribe to The Pottstown Mercury:"

Dear Mr. Paton:

I have lived in Pottstown, PA for the past 18 years. For a good majority of those years I was a paid subscriber to your Journal Register owned daily newspaper, The Mercury. I am no longer a paid subscriber and I would like to share with you why.

I can no longer read your publication due to the continuous and ongoing nasty and degrading comments posted online on a daily basis.

Let me share with you two examples. My wife Amy recently helped organize an Occupy event in downtown Pottstown. Two Mercury articles appeared in the print and online editions. Both articles have spawned close to 60 online comments (as of this writing). The vast majority of those comments are mean, bullying and downright nasty. Here are links to the two articles:

-- 'Occupy' arrives in Pottstown (currently 18 comments);

-- 'Occupy' movement coming to Pottstown (currently 38 comments);

I'm wondering why Journal Register does not use Facebook for their online comments?
I recently read that Gannett now requires Facebook for posting comments
("Gannett requiring Facebook for posting").

Even the neighboring Reading Eagle, the major daily newspaper of Reading, PA (which has a daily circulation of 64,000 and a Sunday circulation of 100,000) requires online comments to be done via Facebook.

Using Facebook will allow for higher quality discussion and a far less amount of anonymous comments ("News sites using Facebook Comments see higher quality discussion, more referrals,” 

(I just wanted an excuse to run this headline!)

I know of many, many Pottstown residents who are disgusted with The Mercury and refuse to read/subscribe to the newspaper due its daily dose of mean-spirited comments.

I would ask that you consider using Facebook for online comments to greatly reduce the amount of trashy comments that The Mercury approves and publishes on a daily basis. I always go out of my way to support businesses in Pottstown, but I will never support The Mercury as long as it gives these reckless comments and their authors an online platform for their hatred.

Julian also kindly provided my boss’s response:

Mr. Francis,

Online commenting is, for sure, one of the most contentious issues in journalism today.

There are no easy solutions and nothing else to do but to work hard to find one which is what we are doing.

I have asked JRC VP Jon Cooper to look into the matter you refer to specifically and report back on what actions, if any, we might take. I have copied Jim Brady, JRC's Editor-in-Chief on this email as well as Nancy March the editor of the Mercury and Ed Condra the Senior Publisher responsible for PA.

I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Sincere regards, John Paton.

Among the things the company did was conduct a company-wide conference on the matter, not the first.

(It was albeit on Twitter. I am still trying to get the hang of boiling down complicated thoughts to 140 characters. The length of the postings on this blog will give you some indication of my success. Nevertheless, a link to that dialogue, which was preserved, is provided here.)

No one there, that I can recall, argued that anonymous comments provide cover for trolls and haters. The discussion instead, was how to improve the dialogue.

Which segues quite nicely, thank you, into our next section…

The Method

Like those who favor anonymity, those who oppose it also offered suggestions about the methods we might use to improve dialog, with Facebook, as Julian indicated above, being the most popular suggestion.

Someone named “Unique Annique” posted the following response on the first blog entry on this subject: “IMO, anonymity in comments is trolling, death threats and down right meanness waiting to happen. When ppl comment on the Mercury Facebook page their face and real name are shown, it keeps ppl somewhat civil when expressing how they feel. If you let them be anonymous then they will express those same feelings only this time it will be in an unnecessary mean, harsh and even cruel manner. The key word here is UNNECESSARY. You can still say how you feel without being a jerk.”

In a comment on my first blog post on this subject, Joe Zlomek, former Mercury publisher, master of ceremonies at the venerable Sanatoga Post and my frequent (and often only) companion in the audience at many a Pottsgrove School Board meeting, offered, as always, some valuable insights:

“Not all identified commenters produce "quality" comments. Moreover, some quality comments are often produced by the anonymous. That said, I would prefer verifiable identification (via Facebook or some other contractor) rather than not.

The most recent research I've seen regarding news site comments is that a majority of comments on most stories are offered by and also read by a limited and recognizable group of commenters. That's often true for The Mercury, and for The Post Publications too.

So while comments may generate clicks, one measurement of website activity, they do not necessarily create growth in unique readership, a far more valuable indicator of website success.”

And then there was Chris Huff, who may well have been the only person with enough intestinal fortitude to actually have read all the JRC “tweets” on this subject.

He wrote simply: “Evan, Facebook or Disqus integration with The Mercury's on-line comments would help to tone down much of the hostility on display there, although it wouldn't eliminate it completely. It would be nice to see some meaningful debate for a change.”

But this preference for Facebook also comes with some warnings from our readers:

J Stew noted: “While it is nearly impossible to get people to use their real names to post (if you connect it to Facebook, they'll just create fake Facebook accounts to post), I do admire the effort.”

The well-informed “Doughboy” also offered a caveat:

“Let me point out one thing, even though Facebook has the TOS that says you must use real identity it doesn't work. You don't know who really is behind the name and if you aren't caught you can post their anonymously. Plus there are rules that say you have be above the age of 13 to have an account there, guess what a good amount of their users are believed to have lied about their age to have an account on the site.

Face it you can't enforce real identity online easily and you will drive your site readers, viewers away, that's a fact.”

Is there a Pot O' Gold at the end of this journey?

And so we arrive at the end of this journey, certainly better informed, but not necessarily any closer to a decision about what to change, if anything on the Web site.

As I have said before in many forum, that is not my decision. But thankfully, this company now embraces and encourages open dialogue and that has provided this forum for me to organize and present to them how this community feels on the subject.

If there are any changes coming, I will be the first to let you know.

For my own part, I must say I found this process valuable in thinking about this.

I began this dialogue dedicated to my crusade to remove anonymity convinced that despite its theoretical values to our Web site, the cost in abusive comments is too high.

I still believe that to be true in many ways. But the solution now seems a little absolutist to me.

I will confess, coming from a tradition (yes, I’m still ‘Old School’ in a lot of ways) that values anonymous sources, I have second thoughts about abandoning anonymity just because so many people can’t use it responsibly.

(Is it just me, or is this starting to sound like a commercial for liquor or firearms?!?)

Anyway, I do find myself being swayed by some of the arguments in favor of finding a method for mitigating the abuse, for encouraging useful dialogue rather than potentially squelching it because just because over-exposure is giving me a weak stomach for the vitriolic soup in which those gems are found.

If we could find a way to do that, using any or a combination of methods to improve dialog and still allow people to be anonymous, what would you think? Do you think our readers could handle it? Could The Mercury?

I remain interested in your thoughts on the matter.

The Anonymity Debate, Part II: In Favor

So first of all, wow.

I was hoping for some feedback but I was not prepared for the flood of opinions that followed. Please excuse the silence of the past few days as I wanted to process it all. (And I had that pesky job thing I had to do).

Any way, lot's of good comments and I thought given the amount of time everyone devoted to them, that I would do two posts: one making the case in favor of anonymous comments; and one against; in both cases using the arguments presented by our readers.

But first, a few admissions:

1) In the interests of transparency, I will tell you years ago, when The Mercury's web site was first established, I dabbled for a brief time making anonymous comments on the site myself, but never on local matters on which I would be reporting, only on national news (he added hurriedly).

That was my rationalization anyway.

However, as much as I enjoyed crossing swords with other posters, I came to realize not only was it inappropriate for me as a reporter to be doing this, I was a little alarmed at the things I seemed willing to say under protection of anonymity.

So I went cold turkey. And, I've been riding a high horse on the subject every since. So yes, I have sinned and, like the reformed smoker, can be the most insufferable person in the room on the need to reform.

2) I entered this discussion firmly convinced that anonymity had to go on our web site, but some of the points made by you all gave me pause.

That said, I have, to the best of my ability, gathered together all the comments from readers that favored keeping comments anonymous, and they will be posted at the end of this blog in one document as the first comment, so you can review the source material as you please. (If I missed one, I apologize in advance, please send it on to me and I will try to add it.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, most in favor of anonymous commenting on the Web site, expressed that view in anonymous comments on the Web site. Those against, for the most part, did so on Facebook, presumably under their real names. We'll hear from this second group in the subsequent post.

I've tried to organize the different schools of thought here. As I saw them, they broke down primarily into issues of political philosophy, motivation and method.

Without further ado, let us examine the case for anonymity, as argued largely by our readers:

Issue 1: Censorship

Perhaps the quickest way to get a journalist's attention is to raise the specter of "censorship;" and several folks wasted no time in doing so.

Meriam-Webster (at least the on-line version; remember, "Digital First") defines censoring as: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>."

 Let's face it, we're already doing that on our web site. Those of us with the authority to delete "objectionable" comments, do so.



But I think our posters meant that requiring names would "discourage dissent," and I think this is a valid point.


Alan Jensen-Sellers wrote: " As much as I loathe the often vile comments made by anonymous Internet posters, I also believe that the principle of being able remain anonymous when being critical of government, industry, or anyone, really is essential to avoid stifling dissent. Journalists have gone to jail to protect anonymous sources, the right to dissent without retaliation has been bought and paid for with millions of lives, (that debt is still being paid by many) So for that reason I believe that despite the Internet sandbox being a lot more like a cat box, the ability to comment anonymously should be retained. I will say those posters that command my highest respect and who hold the greatest credibility to me are those willing to step out from behind the curtain and accept the responsibility for what they post."


Poster JohnP told me: "Remember why you became a reporter and why we live in the best country in the world, " He added: "Our country is becoming a society where we can no longer speak our opinions because it might offend someone. Dictatorship at the national and local levels is what the outcome will be if censorship increases. I am surprised a reporter would desire censorship without outside pressure."

I don't know if I know JohnP, but he clearly does not know I became a reporter because I liked the TV show "Lou Grant." Also, know JohnP the only pressure is internal, our desire to clean up what Mr. Jensen-Sellers has described as "the cat box."

Seriously though, from a philosophical view, this perspective cannot and should not be ignored.

Part of the problem, as a friend of mine pointed out when we were discussing this, is that the Internet has a strong, fiercely defended tradition of being largely anonymous. It is newspapers which are new to the Internet, not the other way around, and the conflict seems to arise from us trying impose newspaper standards to the Internet.

Issue 2: Political Viewpoint

Some posters apparently suspect we are looking at removing anonymity in order to further a political agenda. I find this argument the most easily dispelled, largely because our readers made the point themselves.

Consider: Poster J Stew noted: "Some very hateful comments are allowed while other milder opinions are not. Maybe it's just me but it seems right leaning posters are given far more leeway then left leaning ones."

Almost exactly an hour later, truthsayer told us fear was among our motivations for considering this change: "This fear comes from the difference in philosophies between the media and the average American. The media is overwhelmingly liberal and passive in it's approach to the country and the world, the average American is relatively conservative and aggressive. The media is frightened by what Americans are saying and thinking, because it is very different from what those in the media believe. Yet, these angry and sometimes violent and racist Americans, are the consumers of the media's product. Rather than give up on it's liberal mindset, and try to reflect the American public more accurately, the media now looks to suppress the voice it has given Americans through online comments of it's news stories."
So it would seem we favor right-leaning comments, but have a left-leaning viewpoint and are trying to suppress right-leaning comments. I suspect we could argue this one all year and never reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Rest assured, dear readers, there is no vast right-wing or left-wing agenda here, just us muddling our way through, trying to find the best way to encourage meaningful dialog. ("Meaningful" being in the eye of the beholder, of course, makes this goal nigh impossible to achieve.)

Issue 3: Stop Being Mean to Me

Also falling into the "motivation" category is the suspicion by some readers that I am pushing this because people are mean to me and to others.

To an extent, this is true. At least as it relates to others.

There is a lot of meanness and nastiness among our commenters (we call it being "snarky" in the newsroom). This is an effort to promote civility, pure and simple. But it is not a personal motivation, despite what Keith Kachel suspects.


"And this whole push for real names sounds like it is stemming from when Evan got called out for what someone took as being biased on his reporting of the occupy crap or whatever he was a member of," he wrote on Facebook."If getting called out on the carpet has you pushed that far into a corner , perhaps its time to grow some thicker skin or choose another profession or just suck it up. People ARE going to call bullsh*t or challenge you on subjects."

I don't blame him for reaching this conclusion. Unless he has spent a lot of time reading two of Pottstown's other blogs (I don't want to make the mistake of characterizing them with any potentially mis-interpreted adjectives) he has no way of knowing I have been pushing this rock for more than a year, long before Occupy came to Pottstown.

(Of note: One of those blogs, The Pulse, run by Code Blue, recently announced they will no longer allow anonymous comments. So the experiment is already in motion.)

FYI, Keith, I've been a journalist for 25 years now. I've had my front door window broken once (second attempt failed), anonymous letter campaigns in Upper Pottsgrove urge people to "visit" my house on election night, and a near constant stream of anonymous comments questioning everything from my motives, to my affiliations, to my taste in ties.

My skin may be pasty and a little wrinkled, but it's plenty thick.

This is about trying to get out of the endless, mucky rut that anonymous comments seems to help confine Pottstown to, and move forward, not trying to reduce my therapist bill.

As the ever-sensitive armymedic put it: "People need to grow some thicker skin. News flash, the world isn't always filled with hugs and Care Bear stares."

 
Issue 4: Protection from Retribution

This may be, in my view, one of the best arguments for anonymity, the idea that something just won't be made known (or expressed) if people have to fear retribution as a result of expressing it, either from an employer or one of the many unstable people out there who think comments on The Mercury web site are reason enough to arrange or threaten violence. (In fact, that was ultimately why we had to start monitoring comments in the first place.)

Here are some other comments in the same vein:
-- Q wrote on Dec 1, 2011 5:03 AM:" Anonymous comments allow people to truly say what they feel without fear that their boss or neighbor may not agree with them . Our freedom of speech is impaired by our PC society. I appreciate having an outlet."

--WMSPT11 wrote on Nov 30, 2011 5:25 PM:
" One of the problems I have with giving your name is that every nut in pa. will know who you are. I tell people I know my opinions because I know them and even if they disagree with me I know they will not harass me."

And at this point, I have to tip my hat to one of our most, shall we say "consistent?" posters, the relentless "goodmom."

For even though she threatens legal action with almost every post, she made some good points when she wrote this: "Let's review a couple of comments from anonymous commenters that would have never been known. Bobst violating his contract by living further than 5 miles; Headlines in the Mercury stating landlords owe $700,000 in unpaid bills when the top offenders were businesses; Palladino Jr. and how many times it took him to pass his exam; The REAL real estate situation NOT the comments from Bobst saying everything is steady; Real estate assessment and the real issue with declining prices on, and on and on," she wrote.

True, we offer that ability at other locations at the site, but posting them publicly does put The Mercury on the spot and hold us accountable for what we do and do not act on.

Issue 6: The Method

Several posters concerned themselves less with the ethos of anonymity, than with our goal of improved civility and as such, suggested methods for making that happen.

Most extensive of these is a fellow who goes by the name of "Doughboy."

His very extensive and thoughtful post made the point that: "taking the approach of cutting off what makes the Internet the Internet is wrong. What I mean by that is people like approaching it their own way, some like real name and some like to build an online identity."
He said the best methods of ensuring civility include having other posters rebuke obnoxious posters and "back them down."

Also, a combination of rewarding good comments by "featuring" those we like and allowing people to vote on which comments should be featured (or even allowed) is technically possible and used on other sites.
Doughboy also shared these sobering observations: "Understand that when you put an opinion on the net and let people comment on it there are going to be all types who chime in. You are guaranteed these voices:

1) Trolls - People who want to get attention any way they can by the cheapest methods they can.

2) Anti-Trolls - People who fight said trolls.

3) Innocents - People who get caught in between the Troll and Anti-Trolls.

4) Thinkers - They respond well thought out responses.

5) Haters - They just hate the subject and want to rip on it.

And on and on and on....

Another interesting approach was announced last week by The New York Times.

They will soon have a feature in which "trusted" commenters, those who have never had their posts banned, will have their comments go up in real time. Those who have had to have comments removed in the past, will go into the bin awaiting approval from a moderator.

For those who did not read the JRC discussion we had last week, other suggestions include putting anonymous posts at the bottom of the thread, and elevating those which come with a name attached.

Several other posters suggested a return to our past, saying we should remove monitoring all together, in order to encourage a faster and more free dialog, and only remove comments (once already posted) about which we receive complaints.

Thanks for the input folks.

Lamb Chop, who considers our current arrangement inferior to those at our sister JRC papers in Chester and Delaware County " a joke," wrote: "The other newspapers I mentioned respect their readers views and those newspapers get a lot more feedback from readers." 

To be sure, it's The Mercury's site and we can operate it as we see fit (or as our corporate owners allow us to see fit), but we're trying to find a balance that promotes civility, freedom of freedom of expression, thoughtfulness and sure, a little irreverent behavior.

Perhaps ultimately, we will conclude that those goals are incompatible.

Perhaps ultimately, we will have to chose from among them.

But whatever we decide to do, if anything, it will have been done with input from our readers and for that I thank you. Everyone who commented has certainly provided much food for thought.

Next post: Part III: In Opposition to Anonymity.