Civility appears to be the new “anonymity,” i.e. a local topic of discussion that appears at first glance to be as uncontroversial and inarguable as the desirability of good government.
Trouble is, even something we all can agree on — the need for civility in public office — can become a weapon by which to bludgeon the minority if it is inconsistently and strategically applied.
More and more in our little town, I’ve noticed that the people publicly calling out others for their “uncivil” behavior are too often guilty of the same offense.
That’s why, in a recent Sun column, I not only declined to name those who had recently engaged in uncivil public exchanges, but also took the opportunity to reconsider my own practices:
The officials making these statements in the heat of the moment aren’t “bad” people, and it’s for that reason that I’ve avoided identifying them here by name. Instead, I suspect that… people have shorter fuses today than in the past.
To that I would add that our culture, and our town, have become increasingly intolerant of other opinions, disparate points of view and philosophical differences.
Partisanship has become entrenched, particularly in the past five or 10 years. Somewhere along the way, the goal moved beyond winning the debate or triumphing over the opposition to crushing those who simply hold a different view or dare to speak their mind.
Snark has been elevated to high art, and if you doubt me, just spend an hour on Twitter. Facebook has become a vehicle for almost every human endeavor or discourse, including putting down the “enemy” and polishing your own credentials in the process.
And along the way, too many of us have lost sight of the fact that it’s actually a good thing to respectfully disagree, to be exposed to a wide range of viewpoints and even to passionately debate and defend our position, as long as we stop short of allowing our differences to become so petty and personal that we refuse to acknowledge the good work and redeeming characteristics of the person across the table.
As someone who has been offering up her occasionally pointed opinions for nearly seven years, I’m the first to acknowledge that it can be difficult to keep disagreements from devolving into incivility, particularly when one feels attacked.
I’m also the first to admit that I’m not blameless, so I’ve resolved to redouble my own efforts at civility, and to encourage commenters on my blog to follow suit.
In the past year, tempers have flared repeatedly on both school boards and the village council. Harsh comments have been exchanged — some of which would have been widely and rightfully disdained if they’d appeared on the DGreport, whether anonymously or signed.
That’s one reason I’ve personally rejected the argument that anonymous comments are the end of civility. While anonymity certainly can provide cover for inappropriate attacks, incivility also is increasingly on display in e-mails, on government daises and in public places.
Commenter Meat unleashed a small firestorm on this blog by posting his displeasure with a local coach who reportedly used bad language (loudly) in a local ice cream shop.
If, when or how to call out such behavior is a delicate question. In recent months I’ve held back from quoting some rash public comments for fear of being charged with “stirring the pot.” However, declining to report on what is said in a public meeting also could be viewed as protecting the offender — a mistake I vow not to repeat.
Why had I become uncharacteristically reticent? Because I’ve been the object of the same personal attacks as others in this town who hold alternative or unpopular views.
Last fall, I respectfully approached a local citizen, asking permission to quote in my Sun column a constructive public statement that person had made. Here is an excerpt from the e-mail response I received:
I cannot trust that you will write something that doesn’t twist my thoughts and intentions and mock me for them. That is my main reservation, and I have no desire to be put up like a pinata that your gang will delight in taking unrestrained and unprincipled whacks at simply because my honest desire to be a part of a community-wide discussion has been held up to ridicule.
Given that I’ve never in seven years been told by my editors that my columns that have “twisted” or “held up to ridicule” my subjects’ intentions or elicited “unrestrained and unprincipled whacks,” I took this response for what it undoubtedly was: a personally intended slight.
A truly civil exchange would eschew such personal attacks while allowing for sometimes passionately disparate views. It’s not an easy balance to strike, but it’s a worthwhile one. Because as long as people choose to make their differences personal — whether in a private communication or in a public forum — incivility will become increasingly entrenched in Downers Grove.
Agree or disagree with E.J., she went into great depth and detail to explain her forum at DGREPORT.COM. Not to sound like a kiss*#! Well written article. I can understand: discussing, exchanging, debating, brainstorming; ideas, plans, activities, politics, public policies, etc. But fronting off an individual who is a non-elected official on alleged event that may or may not occurred by anonymous poster is a matter of poor taste, and probably not the mature route. Funny and hypocritical coming from Earl, I guess there is no lines to be draw anyone can be targeted by internet. (Regarding non-elected officials, I just think staff or volunteers in education or sports dealing with our youth should get our support and respect. But picking on them on DGREPORT.COM is not the respectful or adult way to go about it.) I guess it is up to the individual blogger to decide what is the tactful and proper message to post (Of course with E.J., Mark and the community of bloggers to police the remarks posted here). The long and the short of it, when it comes to the internet there is no straight answer when it comes to public blog forums, no more privacy for anyone in the public arena in Downers Big DGREPORT.COM is watching you!
LOL, Earl, the DGreport isn’t staked out at every ice cream shop and coffee house waiting for someone to say something untoward. As you know, I removed the thread in question and only mentioned it in the context of this post as an example of how even “civil” people can come across as uncivil in public. If anything it’s a reminder to myself and my readers to watch not just what we say, but how we say it.
As someone who often has the non-PC viewpoint, I often try to figure out how to reply or discuss a different viewpoint without people immediately taking offense or coming across as uncivil.
But sometimes, folks just need to hear it like it is to wake up to a new viewpoint. Kind of like a fresh splash of cold water.
I think we should be able to discuss issues, and call a spade a spade. I also like the idea of losing the anonymity of posting.
And maybe after getting some rest, might realize this post didn’t make sense..
Okay, Greg, I’ll bite. If we lose anonymity, how should I ascertain that identities of commenters? And how should I react when named commenters are “encouraged” not to post on this site? And how will they feel if they’re blasted for expressing an opinion that elicits a hostile response?
As for the bracing effects of a new viewpoint and calling a spade a spade, I couldn’t agree more. But how do you defend yourself when someone takes exception to your views?
What if any, has the impact of anonymity at DGREPORT.COM impacted Downers Grove in terms of costing anyone their job, loss of business, or changing any outcomes of elections? Answer maybe, just headaches for EJ and ticking off those being spoken about at DGREPORT.COM.
Good question, Earl.
For now, I’ll just point out that anonymity on blogs and news sites is the rule, not the exception.
TribLocal, the Trib, the Daily Herald and the Ups in Downers Grove all allow commenters to hide their identity.
Not sure the extent to which they’re moderated, but most news operations simply don’t have the budget or the staff to do the job. Judging from comments I’ve seen on the Trib and DH, they are not moderated.
The only local site to my knowledge that requires and ascertains real names is Lucy Lloyd’s DG Chronicle.
I’ve always found it intriguing that some of those who object to the DGreport’s comment policy have no problem posting on or linking to sites that permit un-moderated anonymity. Maybe someone could explain that one to me?
Here’s the thing about blogs: you can create one anonymously. I could create one and call myself “Elaine Johnson” if I want. Why would a blog author demand more information from a commenter than he/she is willing to give out himself/herself?
People earn respect by respecting others…..
As for anonymity – Anyone can create an internet identity starting with a “valid” email address. Why does a name make a point of view valid?
Why don’t you ask that over on “that other blog” Sue? She seems to want to keep her affiliations quiet and wants us to believe they play no part in her unbiased “opinions.”
Really now?
Funny enough, Perez, I did. When asked for my address and phone number, I asked for hers, first.
Never did get it.
Reminds me of a Chicago TV personality who claimed that she could have Obama on and not McCain and still be fair because after all it is her show.
So, in order to participate in the banter you must provide, to a total stranger, your full name, home address and phone number, and subsequently rely on that stranger’s good intentions not to share that information with anyone else under any circumstances, regardless of what you’ve written.
Moreover, you are not privy to that same level of disclosure from the moderator (i.e. home address and phone number) and thus cannot contact that person or show up unannounced at they’re doorstep during dinner.
Wow, sign me up!!
Meat, if you were to show up on their doorstep – morning noon or nite – they would not answer and pretend not to be home. Fact not fiction