Internal report I prepared regarding negative effects of anonymous, reader-submitted comments on www.steamboatpilot.com. This report led to a change in policy at the newspaper that requires identity verification.

1. January 11, 2008
Brent Boyer
Editor
Steamboat Pilot & Today
Subject: Anonymous postings on Steamboatpilot.com
Dear Brent,
First, let me apologize for the amount of time it has taken me to prepare this report. When I first decided to
address the topic of anonymous, reader-submitted comments on Steamboatpilot.com, I underestimated the
volatility of the subject. Of course I did not think the issue was one debated at our paper alone, but I was
taken aback when Bob Steele, a media ethicist at The Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla., told me,
“This issue of comments on news organization web sites may be the hottest one in the biz right now.”
I was further astounded when I sent an e-mail out to about 30 of my sources asking their opinion on the
subject. I sent the e-mail at 9 p.m. on a Wednesday. The first response came at 5:14 a.m. the next morning.
By 9 a.m., I had 10. By noon, I had 18. By the end of the day, 23 had trickled in. I ultimately received about
30 responses, some of which came from people I didn’t even send the e-mail too. I wish these sources so
vigorously responded to all my requests. The issue is one that clearly matters to our readers.
When I began working here in July, I was ambivalent on the subject. In fact, I never thought much about it
at all until former Editor Scott Stanford wrote about the subject in his “From the editor” blog in July. Not
having much of an opinion myself, I was inclined to accept Stanford’s justification: “…requiring users to
identify themselves might raise the level of dialogue on the Web site and reduce the nastiness. But I also
fear that it would drastically reduce participation. I admit — I have forsaken the former in order to
encourage the latter.” One of our copy editors vigorously disagreed with Stanford and felt we were
indirectly misleading readers by allowing users to post whatever they wanted, however inaccurate. I was
not swayed by that argument and in fact found it a bit paternalistic. I believe our readers have as much
ability as us here in the newsroom to consider the source and hold anonymous comments less credible.
While I may have been ambivalent, the result of my unscientific survey of sources was not. With the
exception of a tiny minority, I think one word best describes the collective opinion of the respondents:
scorn. All of the responses are included with this correspondence, but here are some highlights:
Anonymous comments are for cowards and lack any accountability. Often those comments are
very brutal and personal. I have been the topic many times and it affects my wife, kids and family.
— Alan Lanning
I very much believe that eliminating this practice and ONLY allowing comment with a name
would both increase the number of commentators as well as bring this section of your paper out of
the gutter.
— Ken Klinger
My experience in reading and posting to blogs leads me to believe that allowing anonymous
postings simply encourages profanity and flaming. It does nothing to enhance the quality of the
debate.
— Carl Steidtman
What it does do is to turn the printer/broadcaster into a biased and opinionated vehicle for bile.
— Mike Forney
The current anonymous blogging can be mean and irresponsible, thus the worst 1 percent of the
potential users keep 90 percent of potential users from ever going there. I have asked people to
engage with it. Given the hours some of those people contribute otherwise, they care a great deal
about our community. But they refuse to enter the blog because they do not want exposure to the
anonymous insults. One banker quipped, “Its the same 10 people, why do you bother reading it.”
— Steve Lewis

2. If people want to joke and blog back and forth it seems to me they can find a system other than
our local paper.
— Ray Birch
I am more open to publishing comments anonymously online, except that your reputation and
brand is so closely tied to your print edition and history. Newspapers historically are the
permanent record of a given area, they are the keepers of tracking the events of the day for the
future. They hold all entities accountable — government, business, individuals. I think you
probably diminish that reputation, even in the cyber world, by publishing anonymous comments
on a site related to your reputation and brand.
— Mark Stutz
I think that anonymous blogging has about the same value as comments scrawled on a public
restroom wall. A paper is a hallowed institution and allowing anonymous blogging on the paper’s
web site demeans the fourth estate’s credibility. Blog pages are easy to create if people want to
share thoughts and ideas, so I don’t believe the paper has any obligation to provide the forum. It
stokes anger and perpetuates inaccurate information.
—Cari Hermacinski
City Councilwoman Hermacinski was involved in what I consider to be one of the worst moments for
Steamboatpilot.com since I began working here. In a story about campaign financing, an anonymous poster
decided to attack Hermacinski in a very personal way. For two years, the Hermacinskis had a young
Slovakian woman named Katarina living with them, who cared for their children in exchange for room and
board, an educational stipend and a weekly salary. During part of Katarina’s time here, she dated a local
doctor, Eric Meyer. In his or her post, the anonymous harasser called Katarina a “gypsy whore” pimped out
by the Hermacinski family. “I suppose that I subjected myself to personal attacks by choosing to enter this
campaign,” Hermacinski wrote in an e-mail to you and I, “but this type of filthy talk is akin to attacking
one of my children.” Hermacinski’s e-mail, along with every response I received about anonymous
comments and most of my research, is included with this correspondence.
While I had long since stopped paying attention to the comments, this incident cemented my now
prevailing opinion that our reader comments, as currently managed, do little to further any meaningful
discourse. Their damaging qualities vastly outweigh their value. As she herself points out, Hermacinski is a
public figure, and as such should expect, and perhaps be less guarded against, such attacks. This does little
to sway my opinion, however, since public figures are not the only ones subject to such abuse. No sooner
can we publish a picture of a person of Latin heritage, than a person goes online and publishes a comment
such as this one, which, among other offences, callously references an infanticide in a Hispanic family last
year:
id04sp (anonymous): Four to a room.
Great.
Can't wait for the first homicide.
Has anybody checked the occupants for green cards?
I always feel for my fellow reporters when one of them is subjected to something like this:
steamboatsconscience (anonymous): Pilot management
Please make Margaret go away.
Pretty please
These comments remain on our Web site today — a fact that brings me to my next point: short of any
sweeping changes to the status quo, we could drastically improve our Web site’s atmosphere simply by
more strictly enforcing our existing Reader Submitted Content Policy which says, “if you … engage in ad
hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories, or reporters and editors, we reserve
the right (but assume no obligation) to remove your contributions. And if you become a problem for our
site’s other users we can and will ban you from using this free service.” Id04sp’s comment is clearly one
that appeals to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason, yet it remains. Steamboatconscience’s comment
is clearly an attack on reporter Margaret Hair, yet it remains. I believe if we took a more hard-line approach
to removing comments — and users — from our Web site, we would if nothing else create an expectation

3. for, and foster an atmosphere of, civility.
I believe, however, that we should go even further. I mentioned media ethicist Bob Steele of the Poynter
Institute earlier. Steele, a former student of my alma mater DePauw University, was a frequent visitor to
campus and became one of my most trusted sources of advice whenever I encountered a touchy issue at our
school newspaper. I contacted him on this issue as well, and I believe he eloquently describes the
detrimental nature of anonymous comments:
My personal belief is that the anonymity creates a tilted tabletop. There is no real accountability
when posters hide behind their screen name, and that lack of accountability likely produces much
more diatribe, personal attacks and mean-spirited voices. … The costs of allowing this cyber-free-
for-all, most pit-like expression are great in my view. I believe there is a lot of collateral damage
to innocent people, as well as the likelihood that the diatribe will deter many otherwise willing
folks from entering the arena to comment.
I would go a step further than Steele, and suggest that the diatribe not only deters folks from commenting
online, but also deters them from engaging with the paper altogether. As recently as yesterday, I had a
source refuse to discuss something with me for fear of the beating he might take in the online comments.
My fellow reporters can relate similar experiences. If the whole idea of online comments is to foster as
much participation as possible, I believe our approach has proved counterproductive. I believe our ability to
do intimate stories, especially, will suffer if it hasn’t already. And who could blame people for not wanting
to open themselves up to us, and thus our Web site?
Unlike most people, us reporters have no choice but to participate regardless of how we feel about the
anonymous comments. But imagine if you will, the effects the diatribe can, and does, have on our morale. I
am frequently disheartened to see the stories I’ve worked so hard on reduced to billboards for hate.
At this point I’d like to stress that I’ve never been one to ignore the business side of journalism. I
understand there are probably economic reasons that we allow anonymous comments on our Web site.
They — arguably — generate users, page views and time on site, all of which are attractive to potential
online advertisers. (I say arguably because what I’ve found and tried to lay out here shows that they may be
turning away more users than they are generating.)
I also understand that our industry is in flux. Our newspaper is a great example of one that is trying to take
advantage of all that mediums such as television and the Internet have to offer. But it has always been my
opinion that in this endeavor, newspapers should strive to adopt the strengths of mediums such as
television, while chucking their traditional weaknesses. How much have we really gained if we gain the
immediacy of television, but also adopt its shrillness and sensationalism? Such an approach I think
undermines a newspaper’s greatest strengths, such as its ability to approach the news in a more analytical
and in-depth way. Readers appreciate this.
Similarly, the Internet has much strength to offer. With it we can allow our readers to participate in the
news in real time unlike ever before. Also, as Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote, “The
intent was to build reader loyalty by making the Web site more of a conversation than just a lecture.” I am
not suggesting that we abandon this rich resource. As much as we hate to admit it, readers often know more
about stories than we do. Plus, we have an obligation to accommodate opinions that challenge what we
publish. But the Internet also suffers from a general lack of credibility, and again I ask how much we really
gain if we adopt that and other weaknesses along with the Internet’s strengths? As Washingtonpost.com
Editor Jim Brady said, “news organizations need to heal the existing wounds and not amputate the limb.”
“Two important journalism values — free, unfettered comment and civil, intelligent discourse — are
colliding,” Howell also wrote. In resolving this matter it is my opinion that we should ask ourselves what
we value as an organization. Do we value expression, in all its forms, above all else? Or do words like
community, dialogue and conversation come first? If it is the former, then perhaps we should leave things
the way they are. Perhaps we believe the utterly unfettered comments are worth their cost. As others have
pointed out, words and ideas have in the past been wrongly oppressed in the name of civility. I would point
out however, that journalism’s commitment to free expression is accompanied just as vigorously by our
demand for transparency, a fact that again shows how the anonymous comments have set our values on a
collision course. Furthermore, as Roy Peter Clark, a Poynter senior scholar and vice president, points out,

4. this argument “may confuse the right to speak with the duty to publish.”
I would like to think that we value the latter words foremost and that we consider this newspaper a vital
member of the community, not merely an aloof spectator, as is the case in some larger markets. If this is so,
I believe our obligation is to foster a vibrant and healthy conversation. In my research I have found that
there are no foolproof solutions to the problems of anonymous comments, but there are ways to raise the
bar. I do not see it as my place to define a new policy, but I will lie out below some suggestions, and the
practices of some other news organizations. My limited legal research suggests each approach might
require us to amend our disclaimers and other safeguards if adopted, but it appears we are sufficiently
protected under any and all scenarios. I would of course refer all such concerns to our legal counsel.
• An obvious and simple step is to require our users to adjust their anonymity settings to include
their name, if they want to comment on a story. This is the practice of organizations such as
Poynter and the New York Times. Concerns with this approach are that there is little we can do
currently to prevent people from using a fake name, or, even worse, someone else’s. Requiring a
mailing address and phone number, along with a full name and e-mail address when registering,
could partially cure this by providing additional information that we may be able to verify the
name against. And at the very least, as Cincymoms.com (an offshoot of The Enquirer newspaper
in Cincinnati) managing editor Karen Guitierrez said, “It’s important that people jump through
some hoops first, to cut down on script kiddies and others who are just making trouble.” Another
concern with requiring users to identify themselves is that we will drive away watchdogs that want
to expose injustice or unfairness but fear retribution. A relatively simply cure for that, I believe, is
to provide a way for users to anonymously submit tips directly to us through the Web site. We
could display this feature prominently with each story. Also, if we take this route but still want to
provide a forum for anonymous discussion, I believe we should more vigorously advertise our
online forums and blogs with each story. We could perhaps even get things rolling ourselves by
having reporters or others start threads or create blogs on particular subjects of interest. I would be
a fan of this approach as it strikes a balance by encouraging a forum for those who wish to
continue discussing anonymously, while also elevating the integrity of our stories by requiring the
comments directly connected to them to come from named sources.
• “If the conversation degrades to such a point where people are just calling each other names and
they can’t control it, then we turn off the comments to that specific story,” Editor Kelly Boldan of
The West Central Tribune in Willmar, Minn., told Minnesota Public Radio. Some might consider
this an extreme step, but if the point of allowing comments beneath a story is to encourage
discussion on that particular subject, it could make sense to disable the feature when it is no longer
fulfilling its intended purpose.
• At the Orange County (Calif.) Register, a “remove comment” button appears next to every user-
submitted comment. Posts are removed if two users click the button. After a vicious attack on a
subject of one of the Register’s stories, editors added this note: “We want this to be a place where
people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities. We built this for you. Please take
care of it. Tolerate broad thinking, but take action against obscene or hateful material. Make it a
credible and safe place worth preserving and sharing.” A concern with this approach, no matter
how many clicks of the button are required to remove a post, is that someone with ulterior motives
could delete entire viewpoints from the comments, even if the process is made laborious by
requiring the entire page to reload after each click. “I imagine there are some sore mouse muscles
in a few companies PR offices,” OCRegister.com editor Jeff Light said.
• A system could be developed that could block the IP addresses of offensive users. This would
give us an added ability to ban such users, who can currently simply sign up for a new e-mail
address to regain access to our site. “We’ve had extreme situations where the network was a
business and have contacted that business to let it know what is coming from the network,” said
Indianapolis Star Editor Dennis Ryerson. “Most companies have policies against such improper
use of company equipment and have been extraordinarily helpful in stopping the abuse.”
• On Savannahnow.com, reporters are expected to answer comments posted to their story. I’m not
sure how much value we would find in this approach, but it might allow reporters to operate as a
kind of moderator that could refocus the discussion on the topic at hand and steer it away from the

5. gutter.
• The Courier Mail in Queensland, Australia, has a user agreement that goes above and beyond
most. Its Web site rejects comments that do “not add to the debate,” or are “repetitious, illegal or
meaningless,” or that contain “clear errors of fact.”
• Some interesting provisions of Poynter’s user agreement: “Feedback comments are limited to
2,000 characters, or about 300 words. We encourage you to keep your comments within those
limits as opposed to continuing to another post. … Discussions dominated by the frequency or
verbosity of individual contributors become less interesting and useful for the rest of us. At times,
it may be more appropriate for you to exchange an e-mail directly with a fellow poster rather than
carrying on a conversation in the feedback area.”
• Slashdot, a technology news aggregator, has one of the more novel approaches. Other users
moderate the comments users post about articles. Moderators are selected at random, new users
cannot moderate and each moderator cannot moderate and post in the same discussion. “Every
post is born with a predetermined rating between zero and two — determined based on the ratings
assigned to the user’s previous posts. Moderators can then raise or lower the score of a post —
each moderator can dole out five points. No posts can have a score higher than five or lower than
negative five. Individual users specify their tolerance for viewing posts with low scores.” This
approach adopts the “self-policing” theory of the Internet. This is the theory behind Wikipedia,
and it supposes that information on the Internet becomes increasingly credible as fellow users
correct each other. I’m skeptical such an approach could work on Steamboatpilot.com, however.
Our very own Andy Wirth, chief marketing officer for Intrawest, does a good job of summing this
up: “It’s been suggested that with critical mass of use, the self-policing nature of this space in fact
makes it accurate, over time. Two key variables here MIGHT make this true. Volume and time.
The operative word is might and accuracy now becomes exceedingly subjective. In this case,
meaning Steamboat and even Rocky Mountain News, we simply don’t have nearly enough critical
mass and/or use to make the postings anything more than graffiti.”
In conclusion I would recommend that we remember that Steamboatpilot.com is our Web site. We have
allowed it to be hijacked by everyone from the reckless to the racist. I hope we can take it back and turn it
in to something we can be proud to put our names on.
Respectfully submitted,
Brandon Gee
Reporter
Steamboat Pilot & Today
Enclosures

6. gutter.
• The Courier Mail in Queensland, Australia, has a user agreement that goes above and beyond
most. Its Web site rejects comments that do “not add to the debate,” or are “repetitious, illegal or
meaningless,” or that contain “clear errors of fact.”
• Some interesting provisions of Poynter’s user agreement: “Feedback comments are limited to
2,000 characters, or about 300 words. We encourage you to keep your comments within those
limits as opposed to continuing to another post. … Discussions dominated by the frequency or
verbosity of individual contributors become less interesting and useful for the rest of us. At times,
it may be more appropriate for you to exchange an e-mail directly with a fellow poster rather than
carrying on a conversation in the feedback area.”
• Slashdot, a technology news aggregator, has one of the more novel approaches. Other users
moderate the comments users post about articles. Moderators are selected at random, new users
cannot moderate and each moderator cannot moderate and post in the same discussion. “Every
post is born with a predetermined rating between zero and two — determined based on the ratings
assigned to the user’s previous posts. Moderators can then raise or lower the score of a post —
each moderator can dole out five points. No posts can have a score higher than five or lower than
negative five. Individual users specify their tolerance for viewing posts with low scores.” This
approach adopts the “self-policing” theory of the Internet. This is the theory behind Wikipedia,
and it supposes that information on the Internet becomes increasingly credible as fellow users
correct each other. I’m skeptical such an approach could work on Steamboatpilot.com, however.
Our very own Andy Wirth, chief marketing officer for Intrawest, does a good job of summing this
up: “It’s been suggested that with critical mass of use, the self-policing nature of this space in fact
makes it accurate, over time. Two key variables here MIGHT make this true. Volume and time.
The operative word is might and accuracy now becomes exceedingly subjective. In this case,
meaning Steamboat and even Rocky Mountain News, we simply don’t have nearly enough critical
mass and/or use to make the postings anything more than graffiti.”
In conclusion I would recommend that we remember that Steamboatpilot.com is our Web site. We have
allowed it to be hijacked by everyone from the reckless to the racist. I hope we can take it back and turn it
in to something we can be proud to put our names on.
Respectfully submitted,
Brandon Gee
Reporter
Steamboat Pilot & Today
Enclosures