In the aftermath of the publication of Max Greenberg’s April 9 editorial cartoon depicting a bloodied smear in the form of the 2008 Beijing Olympics logo, The Diamondback’s website has become something of a battleground. The comment board for the cartoon has accrued, as of yesterday evening, more than 200 comments. While one might initially be encouraged by such enthusiasm and fervor sparking such a volume of political discourse, a quick read through the comments will promptly extinguish any approval.
In the weeks since the cartoon’s publication, the outcry and offense taken by Chinese students at the university has been met by a strong backlash of presumably American students. Some of the comments found on the board, of course, are intelligent and respectable conversations regarding the Chinese political situation, Tibet and freedom of speech in America. I would venture, however, that more than half of the comments are angry and aggressive, if not insulting, degrading and even racially prejudiced.
I came across another example of a message board in a downward spiral of civility while watching The Daily Show on April 16. Jon Stewart’s guest was Peter Steinfels, a religious columnist for the New York Times. In discussing the papal visit, Steinfels said his editor would not permit him to see the comments on the papal visit blog on the Times website, because they apparently consisted almost completely of obscene remarks about the Catholic Church sex scandal, other forms of general anti-Catholic sentiment and demeaning remarks by Catholics about non-Catholic critics.
In considering these two occurrences, it seems they are indicative of a larger problem, one that, once I had thought about it, I realized I had already been vaguely aware of. That problem is that Internet message boards have cheapened what passes as discourse to the point where it is rarely more than an excuse to hurl mindless insults. Anyone who has read through some of the comments on a YouTube video probably knows exactly what I mean.
The problem is twofold: It lies in the convenience and one-click accessibility of posting a comment on the Internet as well as in the all-but-complete anonymity of the process. To have this column published, I had to sit down and formulate my thoughts in such a way that I might produce what I hope is a respectable and insightful argument. I then had to submit it to a respectable institution (The Diamondback) for critique, editing and approval. Finally, I had to attach my name to it. It is this set of checks and standards that ensure that the level of discourse on a newspaper’s editorial page not descend to that often found on Internet message boards.
Without any such assurances in the world of the Internet, the only things standing between an angered reader and saying whatever is on his mind are making up a false name under which to post and checking a box that says he isn’t spamming. As can be seen in the comments for Greenberg’s cartoon, in the comments on the New York Times’ papal blog and no doubt on the message boards of thousands if not millions of webpages across the Internet, these assurances are not enough. The convenience and anonymity of the Internet are bringing out the worst in people. They are allowing people to make racial, ethnic and even personal insults in a forum of almost zero consequence, and ultimately, I fear, they are jeopardizing our society’s standard of what passes as respectable, acceptable and meaningful discourse.
Josh Crawford is a freshmen letters and sciences major. He can be reached at jcrawfor@umd.edu.
