by Susan J. Demas
January 4, 2009

“You are a buffoooon.” – seethetruth

“I was totally in agreement with you for a change, that is right up to the point you morphed back into the same bimbo with a bimbo’s agenda you are most of the time.” – Ado4

“Susan Demas ought to end her life without delay and offer up her rejected mind for scientific research.” – SS427

No, these aren’t love letters from my dear ex-husband, though some of them come awfully close. They’re just recent assorted posts from anonymous readers to my syndicated newspaper column covering stem cell research, John Dingell and the Republican Party.

My inbox has been crammed with far worse missives, including a few propositions and a pair of death threats. As unpleasant as these e-mails are, they’re par for the course for political columnists, particularly women. That’s what the delete key was invented for. But the online feedback I generate is a different animal.

On most news sites across the state, readers are permitted to post comments. Ideally, this creates a running dialogue, in which readers can debate, post links to related stories, ask for further clarification on a topic and point out errors.

“It’s about democratizing the news,” a former editor once rhapsodized to me.

Yeah, and he just had to ax one-third of his employees weeks before Christmas, so I think I’ll take a pass on his esteemed journalistic judgment.

In reality, forums function as an excuse for people to berate and insult each other (sometimes the author, but often we’re irrelevant), and not necessarily about the topic at hand. They’re a clearinghouse for bloviators looking for a place to unload their pent-up rage against Mitt Romney — and a column that mentions the Mittster once in the 17th paragraph is good enough for them.

The Detroit News has a separate page for reader dialogue, but many sites place comments directly under the piece, so it subconsciously colors your view of it (and means a printout of a 700-word story can be 21 pages).

Of course, there are my diehard readers who post a dozen times a day, starting with their first demand for my firing shortly after my column goes live at 5 a.m. and registering their last critique of my mug shot at 3:17 a.m. I’m regularly referred to as sweetie, honey, babe, Suzie, dear, little girl, bimbo and bitch.

I’m certainly not the only target, nor the biggest. Maureen Dowd and David Brooks could probably fill dozens of asylums with readers who blast them. Armed with a boldness only a juvenile pseudonym can provide, posters feel free to unleash an orgy of ad hominem attacks, however misspelled. The sheer vitriol and monotony of the insults is depressing.

Whereas opinion page editors could toss shakily written postcards from kooks in the trash, they now get prime online real estate. Only the most profanity-laced or threatening posts tend to be banned on many websites.

But the problem goes beyond the disturbed folks who would never have the guts to sign their names to the tripe they type. Most posters, frankly, don’t know what they’re talking about.

When I write about the state budget, they can’t keep their numbers straight and throw out suggestions like, “No more bridges to nowhere!” that don’t even remotely apply to Michigan. When I write about Barack Obama, a member of the tin-foil hat brigade will insist s/he has PROOF THAT HE IS NOT A US (sic) CITIZEN AND CAN’T BE PRESIDENT. The proof’s in the chain e-mail, natch.

Forget about a stimulating give-and-take of ideas. There’s little to be found in online news sites, which is a pity. I’ve often wondered how many reasonable readers are chased away by the abrasive posts online.

So why do we give these people credence?

Some journalists (like my old pink-slip-happy boss) are convinced that this is the way to turn around newspapers by drawing more eyeballs to websites. In reality, the only thing that will save print media is to develop a successful online business model, as ad revenue flows to Google and craigslist.

I’ve watched the media dumb itself down for years. When another editor proudly told me that we’d put whatever readers wanted on 1A of her small-town paper (“If people want Paris Hilton on the cover, we’ll give ’em Paris Hilton”), I knew that wasn’t the right place for me.

Here’s my idea. Readers can e-mail the author or contact the editor if they’re so moved. If they wish to chat with others, they should be able to click on a link, taking a page from the News and others.

I can take the shots, as can other professionals. But the question is: what real purpose does anonymous, instant feedback serve? The only answer I see is to satisfy the lowest common denominator.

Enough is enough.

Pot meets kettle
It’s been with considerable amusement that I’ve read editorials in papers from the Panama City News Herald to The Wall Street Journal slamming the $17-billion bridge loan for U.S. automakers. If GM would just build cars people want to buy, they wouldn’t be in this mess, so the argument goes.

Ahem. No industry has taken as dramatic a nosedive as print media in the last five years, including the autos. Year after year, papers and magazines get thinner, pages get smaller, staffs get downsized and more content gets shifted online, where companies can’t make a buck.

For my part, I desperately want to see both industries survive and thrive. Both have been victims, to some degree, of circumstances beyond their control. But this glaring hypocrisy (and the media’s allergy to self-reflection) bears notice.

Susan J. Demas is a 2006 Knight Foundation Fellow in nonprofits journalism and a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service.