In March of this year, after reading comments sent to websites, I wrote in “How Not to Persuade”:
“As I quickly scan the responses to the latest political news story, I am saddened.
Why? Because people’s responses to the news (of this legislation) were filled with name calling and labeling. Reading those comments was like listening to school children at recess.
Where were the factual responses? Where were the thoughtful, logical points about the legislation?”
Now AOL is instituting a new approach to comments. Their new policy is an attempt to encourage readers to kick around ideas. I, for one, am glad to see it.
Their new policy says, ‘In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers…we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on…anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published…” Finally!
They are calling their new policy “civilogue”–do we really need another new term to understand? Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction. Labeling and name-calling are no substitute for facts and logical reasoning. Labeling and name-calling certainly do not persuade a person to one’s point of view.
When we communicate, whether speaking or writing, we need to use our voice not to “slam,” but rather to make a contribution.
July 1st, 2010
That is good news. I often don’t even look at the comments to a story because nothing constructive is said. Write on!
July 4th, 2010
If one is dealing with issues rather than personalities, then the issues would be researched and discussed with insight not agenda. Too many people seem to think that “communication” is shouting their opinion the loudest, and if other don’t agree with them then “they”(the others) are wrong.