FranklinNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

This Just In...

Kevin Fischer is an award-winning veteran broadcaster who has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for nearly three decades.
Kevin, who is a legislative aide to state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, “INTERchange,” on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, in Franklin.

Internet anonymity as bad as Internet porn

By Kevin Fischer
Tuesday, Oct 23 2007, 05:55 AM
I have no qualms whatsoever about people disagreeing with my views. In my line of work, I face the possibility every day and deal with it.

I’m proud of my extensive journalistic background. My peers, listeners and viewers have recognized my body of work, and my bio includes, as former Milwaukee Journal media critic Mike Drew once said, a “trunkload of awards.”

Even so, I recognize that ever since I was thrust into a role of offering opinions on the air and now in print, not everyone will always agree. Where I draw the line is being called a liar. For decades I’ve built a career on reporting the truth. The opinions I broadcast are based on research I’ve conducted and experiences I’ve had that have helped me form those views. I have never lied on the air or in print.

In the summer of 2006, state Representative Tony Staskunas (D-West Allis) wrote, on his letterhead, to an individual that I had lied on WISN about him and a legislative issue.

I got a hold of the letter, and the next time I filled in on WISN, I shot holes in Staskunas’ contention and essentially called him out. After discrediting his argument, I invited him to call me on the air, come to my office, talk to me in the Capitol hallway, or send me an e-mail if he still believed I had lied. I have never heard from him.

Last week, an anonymous individual wrote in the comments section of one of FranklinNOW blogger Greg Kowalski’s entries that I was a liar. This person was proven wrong, so I and others suggested the comments be deleted and that an apology should be made.

Kowalski simply didn’t know what to do and even e-mailed me privately to express his difficulty about how to proceed. I quickly responded that if he didn’t know what to do, it was pretty sad.

Kowalski allowed the offensive, derogatory, and utterly false comments to stay on his blog. I made the decision that the anonymous individual would no longer be allowed to place comments on my blog, and because Kowalski failed miserably in doing the appropriate decent thing, then he, too, would be banned from commenting on my blog.

The anonymous offender was even allowed to call me a liar a second time on Kowalski’s blog, and later, offer a far less than sincere apology. As of this posting, both statements calling me a liar are still up on Kowalski’s blog.

Today, talk show host and author Dennis Prager has written a column about his view that Internet anonymity is just as destructive as Internet porn. Prager writes, in part:

“There is something at least as awful -- and arguably more destructive -- that permeates the Internet: the lies, vitriol, obscenities and ad hominem attacks made by anonymous individuals on almost every website that deals with public issues.

Being identifiable breeds responsibility; anonymity breeds irresponsibility.”

I urge you to read Prager’s column in its entirety. Take special note of his last paragraph where Prager offers his own solution about individuals like the gutless coward who falsely accused me of lying.

 

Comments

Ron D. Singer   

Perhaps it would help if the website had a feature that would allow the comment poster to sign up with their name and address, and then just shorten the name left on the comment to Ron S., Franklin.  Just like if I was mailing you a letter and you were reading my letter on the air or publishing my letter.

October 23, 2007 7:02 AM

had to comment   

Kevin said:

"I have no qualms whatsoever about people disagreeing with my views."

I say:

I have found you have a lot of qualms about people disagreeing with your views. You have not exhibited a lot of professionalism in dealing with opposing views.(Especially all the name calling nonsense)

Also..........

Readers know, or should know that most blogs really are not much more than the equivalent of a  cocktail party or water cooler chit chat,basically a bunch of people sitting around spouting off.Often times created by a person with a particular agenda in the first place.  If they really believe they are getting high quality fact checked information all the time with everything they read on the internet than I think they are going to own a lot of swamp land in their lifetime.

I think the anonymous feature allows more people to offer viewpoints that otherwise would not. It creates a larger pool of information to draw from, more ideas. Most of us can filter the good information from the intentional nonsense. Some people like the drama of the word "liar" even if it doesn't really fit the situation. Talk to Fred Keller about this.(lol)

October 23, 2007 7:55 AM

Phil G   

Please forgive my long comment.  I don't believe Mr. Fischer has a problem with people disagreeing with his views.  He lets you have your say.  He will have his say right back if he has a differing opinion.  An honest opinion for you to see.

Last night, Mr. Kowalski showed a different way of thinking when it comes to disagreeing with a person's point of view.  Josie left a comment on his blog regarding the Target petition and sidewalks.  An innocent comment questioning the relation between the petition and those sidewalks.  Greg berated her for it, deleted her comment, she reposted, he berated her several times, and then left her posts but deleted his remarks.  I questioned him on that this morning and got the following response.  Kowalski gives his reason for why he feels he can just delete a comment.  You decide:

Phil G    

Yes - sidewalks are great (unless you have to shovel them)!  They are a good thing.  Who was saying they weren't?

What you don't GET is that YOU made the issue over it.  A simple point was made.  You just don't like that everything isn't sunshine and lollipops on your blog.

So - why did you delete your entries last night??

October 23, 2007 8:28 AM

Greg Kowalski    

Because Phil I know when somebody is just posting comments to lure the attention of those radicals on this site, and win favor of them. I've spent 6 months with most of those bloggers, and I'm noticing how they work. If commentators want to do such things they should just post their thoughts on their blogs - they welcome those things.

Hey - I never BANNED Josie from my blog. Remember that.

October 23, 2007 9:06 AM

Tara   

Kevin,

As much as I hate to weigh in on this, this whole thing has been bugging me for some time.  No one disputes the fact that you had a conversation with the chairman of the EC and no one has disputed the words that she said once that she confirmed that she said them.  However, she did dispute the way that you interpreted the meaning of her words.  To my recollection, you have never acknowledged that you may have misunderstood or mischaracterized her words.  As we have discusssed, you have clearly stated why you think that the EC should be dissolved and that's fine.  It's also OK for you to write a blog based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of a sentance.  However, I think its disingenuous for you to keep bringing this topic under the circumstances.  OK, I'm ready.  Let me have it.

October 23, 2007 9:21 AM

Tara   

You win.  I give up.  You didn't misunderstand anybody.  You perfectly characterized her meaning and everything she said subsequently was failed recollection on her part.  

October 23, 2007 10:39 AM

John Michlig   

The concept of online communication - anonymous or not - is tangentially related to research I'm doing on how the nature of "community" is changing in suburbs like Franklin.

I'm often surprised by the outright coarseness of online communications, and I catch myself "going for the jugular" many times as well (it pays to wait a moment or two before hitting that "send" button). The state of modern discourse is pretty dismal, affected as it is by the bomb-throwers on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, etc.

I feel this coarseness is also directly related to the fact that most suburban communities lack the public spaces that used to bring people from varied backgrounds together to interact; what is sometimes referred to as "the third place." Today, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for people to interact with those who might come from a different background or have a different ideology, people you would have to learn to get along with. We are an insular, self-involved society, moreso now than at any other time in American history.

In the old "main street" and "neighborhood pub" days, guys like me and Fred Keller, for instance, would be able to butt heads on a topic or topics, go pretty hard at it, and then slap each other on the backs as we leave; "See you next time." "Not if I see you first, you so-and-so!" Smiles all around. We would experience each other as PEOPLE, and our ideological differences would not stand in the way of our duty to be civil or our desire to interact. Moreover, we would BOTH grow with the exchange of ideas.

I truly believe this.

But that's not what happens online. Like the aggressiveness that overtakes many of us when we get behind the wheel, the online environment obliterates our sense of "humanness." The rules we learned in kindergarten go out the window. No one is immune.

I don't want to point fingers at specific people here, but it's obvious that there are those who use language and behavior online - - anonymous or not - - that they would never even consider in a face-to-face environment. When these people get frustrated or run out of facts to deploy, they resort to taunting, name-calling, straw-man arguments, tired cliches (both right- and left-wing varieties). They rarely engage the actual issue being discussed - - they go so far off the rail that it actually seems kind of odd.

That wouldn't  - - and doesn't - - happen in a face-to-face discussion.

We're seeing people embrace as acceptable, sometimes without even knowing it, what they see on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and hear on talk radio.

I know this is something I have to be cognizant of in my own online interactions - - no one is immune - - and I would hope others would as well. There's no reason we can't disagree aggressively but respectfully.

For example: I'm currently attempting to draw out and engage Fred Keller on a specific topic he raised over on his blog. I'm hoping we can discuss the issue (the ISSUE), and it may get heated, but I still hold out hope that we can eventually end on a handshake in spite of the fact that I am going to aggressively work to keep him on-topic and point out shortcomings in his argument (or avoidance thereof). If that means I have to ignore his initial hostility, so be it. My job in the interaction is to renew his focus and bring him back on-topic; if I note that his refusal to read an eight-page article makes him "willfully uninformed," I'm being frank, but also inviting him to prove me wrong. If I call him names, I'm just being a jerk.

So let's remain sharp, but let's all try to be civil as well, huh?

Imagine that you might, in spite of our growing insularity, actually MEET the person "out there" some day ...

October 23, 2007 10:50 AM

franklinresident   

Kevin,

I have to disagree with you regarding anonymity.

I post comments under a pseudonym for one reason and one reason only, my personal privacy.

There are too many ways for a person to find out personal information about you on the net.

For instance I don't want someone to Google my real name, get my address and my phone number, there are far too many unstable individuals out there.

(And it appears there are quite a few of them in Franklin, unfortunately)

Other than that, I really enjoy reading the blog. Keep up the good work :)

October 23, 2007 10:55 AM

John Michlig   

Franklinresident makes a very good point. But with anonymity comes responsibility, of course.

Also, I think we can agree that the "edge" and reliability of a comment are somewhat diffused by lack of attribution to a real person.

Nicknames on forums like this, by the way, are not that impossible to "break" for anyone who wants to know the true identity (in terms of email address and IP address).  

In my case, however, if I'm going to make a claim or hold someone's feet to the fire, I prefer to do it under my own name.

Kevin, Lady Bird Johnson commented as well on how civility has changed  - - disappeared - - in government halls since her husband roamed them. She said it's a completely different environment now.

October 23, 2007 11:48 AM

franklinresident   

Hi John,

While I usually don't agree with you; I do appreciate the even tempered responses you share.

You wrote:

" Nicknames on forums like this, by the way, are not that impossible to "break" for anyone who wants to know the true identity (in terms of email address and IP address).  "

Yes, However the only people with access to this information are the site administrators and the bloggers themselves.

Therefore, if one did come under harassment  on the phone or God forbid at the front door, you would know who would be able to access to this information. Unless I'm missing something it is impossible for FranklinNow blog readers to access this information (i.e.: server logs, visitor info, visitor location, page views, page loads, time spent on site, etc) As it should be.

(BTW I have 20 plus years in IT and I am unaware of how to do it-But it could be one of the many things I have yet to learn) :)

If I were to post under the name "Peter Parker" or any other made up name I would still have the opinions as FranklinResident.

October 23, 2007 12:27 PM

John Michlig   

Thank you, Franklinresident.

As far as "nickname security,' I don't think the casual surfer is gonna be able to crack it, but I always assume that it can and will be done. There are no secrets out here on the 'net.

October 23, 2007 3:54 PM

J. Strupp   

I choose to attach my full name to my comments because I believe that it forces me to take responsiblity for the statements, accusations, etc. I make in a forum that can, often-times, be abused by individuals who think that the e-world is not the same as the real world.  I also completely understand the right to privacy a person may want uphold in this day and age while also contributing to forum such as this.  I guess we can only treat each other's comments (anonymous or not) with the respect we all deserve as long as that respect is given back.

P.S. This is topic is long overdue in my book and very important to the new format of NOW.

October 23, 2007 4:26 PM

franklinresident   

J.STRUPP

I agree with you 100%. I think you hit the nail on the head with your PS .

Most importantly, respect is a two way street.

Deleting comments or whole blog entries in my opinion shows a lack of respect for the FranklinNow web community (excepting comments containing vulgar language).

I think we all know who I am talking about.

Kevin,

Sorry that I'm a bit off topic ;[

October 23, 2007 7:40 PM

J. Strupp   

"Deleting comments or whole blog entries in my opinion shows a lack of respect for the FranklinNow web community (excepting comments containing vulgar language)."

...and sacrifices creditability as well.

October 23, 2007 9:12 PM

Middle of the Road   

As you may recall, a frequent negative commenter "Unfettered Candor" on the FranklinNOW blogsphere

October 25, 2007 5:47 PM

This Just In...   

As I post every Sunday, here are the top five most popular of my blog entries from the previous week

October 28, 2007 7:37 AM

This Just In...   

I am not a big fan of anonymous Internet posters. Not all are bad, but let’s face it. Using a fake name

March 10, 2008 6:45 PM

This Just In...   

I have blogged about the dangers and the problems with reckless anonymous bloggers and Internet posters

April 28, 2008 6:04 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.