Comments on: Topix Is Gone

By: Paul Stern

Paul Stern — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:18:54 +0000

The responsibility for the information in a story quoting an unnamed source rests with the newspaper itself. If a reporter (and, accordingly, his or her newspaper company) uses an unnamed source to say Mr. X cheated on his wife, then Mr. X has a cause of action against the paper. (Not to mention the fact that one unnamed source is generally not enough by industry standards. Most editors want three.) The paper becomes accountable for what it prints, period. If the reporter does not disclose his sources to the courts when ordered to do so (via due process), then the reporter sits in jail on a contempt count. It has happened on numerous occasions.

Online platform providers have no such standard. In fact, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects them from libel charges as the result of those who post. So an anonymous post can malign someone (even you) and you have no recourse against that person and none against the person (even me) who allowed it to be there. In my world that is not ethical or fair. Some sites don’t have any such standard.

By: Li'l Em-Kel

Li'l Em-Kel — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:57:09 +0000

But news reporters routinely cite un-named sources who may or may not exist. They do it all the time and the anonymity of their sources is almost always protected by law. Suppose someone on your blog asserts that he has a reliable source who says that Mr. X cheats on his wife. If reporters can have secret sources, so can he, right?

By: Paul Stern

Paul Stern — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:33:14 +0000

I mean people should be held responsible for any negative consequences their false or hateful statements cause. For example, if I post a statement falsely to the effect that Mr. X cheated on his wife, Mr. X ought to know who posted it and be able to pursue a libel case against me. If I post anonymously, he has no recourse and I am not accountable. If I call someone some sort of racist slur, I ought to be identifiable to the community so they can know who among them is a racist.

By: Li'l Em-Kel

Li'l Em-Kel — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:51:13 +0000

Your comments on 6-30-09 and 7-8-09 refer to accountability for what one says. I’m wondering what it means to be “accountable” or “responsible” for a statement. Do you simply mean statements should be non-anonymous? Do you mean people should be accountable for the consequences of their statements?

By: Paul Stern

Paul Stern — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:45:53 +0000

Generally when I say that I mean “made to take responsibility for” and, if appropriate, “suffer the consequences of.” But, in this case, I haven’t a clue what the context is. Help me out, please.

By: Li'l Em-Kel

Li'l Em-Kel — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:38:30 +0000

Hey Stern,

What do you mean “held accountable”?

By: iBlogWestHartford

iBlogWestHartford — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:54:33 +0000

I loved posting on Topix. Sure, the “debate” was low rent, often snide, sometimes vulgar and frequently indecipherable. So I would expect that when I dove in with my generally unpopular liberal comments. My goal was to use a combination of facts and sarcasm to best the legions of right-wing attackers. Then one or two or more progressive allies would join me in the fray. It was free-wheeling fun!

By: J. Marie Poulin

J. Marie Poulin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:57:24 +0000

The loss of so many staff is sad considering that the Courant is our states biggest paper. I did buy a copy the other day and I liked the format a little more than some of the previous efforts. However, I beseech the Courant to think about bringing back the Northeast section. I miss the essay format that took a little break from straight-up news stories.

Also, I noticed the tabloid section in the Sunday edition pretty much just offers a recap of the previous week’s news. I would prefer to see new stories from around the state than a rehash of what has already been printed.

A slightly more frivolous complaint is how the Courant does not print Dear Amy’s full column. I know it is on the website but if I buy a paper I want to get the full content. Not everyone likes to read off the computer.

Good luck in the future.

By: J. Marie Poulin

J. Marie Poulin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:59:03 +0000

Dave, it’s possible that he’s speaking about the content from experience because he is a former customer. I have also stopped buying the Courant, but I also can give reasons for why I don’t read it anymore simply because I once was a Courant customer.

I chose to drop the Courant because they changed the format to attract younger customers while disregarding those of us who had been supporting the Courant for several years. They didn’t care about the loyalty of their long-term readers.

They destroyed, and then discontinued, the Northeast section, dropped Parade, kept cutting down on the content and were constantly writing stories about racism, racism and more racism.

Someone would have to have been a Courant reader in the first place to be able to actually drop the Courant.

By: Dave Owens

Dave Owens — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:07:09 +0000

Is that his real name? If so, congrats for having a pair.

But the guy says he doesn’t read the paper, then goes on to say what it doesn’t do. How does he know, he doesn’t read it?

He hasn’t spent much time on your site either, Paul.

Dave Owens
(Real name, honest!)