Everybody has the right to comment on stories, even if anonymously, Money Management editor Jon Cudby argues. Responding to a campaign by Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford to bar such practices, he said that democratisation of the media is a good thing. Here, Mr Bamford replies.
Jon argues that anonymous idiots keeping their right to be heard is preferable to nobody having the right to share their opinion anonymously. It will come as little surprise that I disagree. I do, however, respect his opinion.
There are only very limited circumstances in our profession where there is a genuine need for anonymity. Whistle-blowers do not tend to set up an account as ‘eddysnowden123’ and then post in the comments section under an article to tell the world about their boss embezzling millions of investor cash. Or perhaps they do.
What anonymous commenters do seem to be adept at doing is posting petty insults and making snide insinuations. These are obviously best ignored. ‘Don’t feed the trolls’ is sage advice.
After more than a decade of writing and commenting regularly for the press, I’ve grown a pretty thick skin. I don’t set out to court controversy; I do expect to attract the moronic anonymous comment (or 10) when I put forward a particular point of view.
The trouble with ignoring anonymous comments is this does not make them go away. The internet being what it is, comments remain there for all to discover and read. Failing to address a comment can be viewed, by some, as accepting its assertions.
In real life, away from computer keyboards and monitors, we can deal with those who raise questions about our professional integrity or set out to attack us. We can deal with them because we know who they are. This allows us to face our accuser. Data protection rules in the UK are such that even the nastiest online comment cannot be properly defended because the publisher will not release details of identification without you first spending tens of thousands on a Norwich Pharmacal Order.
I think we have a troll problem in financial services. To the best of my knowledge, there are only a handful of individuals who post anonymously in this way. The trouble is, they have a habit of being fairly prolific in their activity and, in some cases, they set up multiple anonymous accounts to give the impression their point of view holds popular support.
You and I both know that in most cases these are sad little men sitting in a back bedroom, stabbing away at the keyboard and expressing opinions which they would never dare say face to face. That knowledge does not make the situation any better.
This is not about democracy. Democracy does not require anonymity. In those relatively few cases where a genuine need for anonymity does exist, the option to speak to a journalist ‘off the record’ is still there.
No, what anonymity is providing is an outlet for a few keyboard warriors to damage the collective reputation of our entire profession.
I have every sympathy for the press and the challenges they face when it comes to verifying identities and moderating comments. Even the best technology solutions are far from perfect. This should not prevent steps being taken in the right direction to encourage more responsible behaviour online.
By calling for a ban on anonymity and better moderation of offensive comments, I hope to move things along towards more professional behaviour which dramatically reduces the reputation-damaging activity we currently witness on a daily basis. I hope publishers and editors are up for the challenge.
