NINETY years ago, C. P. Scott celebrated his fiftieth year as editor of a British newspaper called the Guardian and the one hundredth anniversary of the Guardian itself with a commentary. Scott said a lot of thoughtful things about newspapers' importance and responsibilities, but the line that became famous declared, "Comment is free, but facts are sacred." That sentence "has endured as the ultimate statement of values for a free press and continues to underpin the traditions of the Guardian newspaper today," according to the paper's website.
Comment was a different thing in Scott's day. Editors and columnists commented and readers sent letters that were published days later. It was a deliberate sort of conversation.
That model is not completely extinct, though often today's letters are really emails. But virtually every print publication also has an online version that allows readers to post comments. That is good because it allows people to share their opinions quickly and easily. The problem is that it allows people to share their opinions quickly and easily. Bang out a few key strokes, hit "send" or whatever the little on-screen button says and it is done.
To send a letter, a person has to find some paper and a pen; sit down and compose the thing; fold it up; put it in an envelope; find the "letters to the editor" address; put that on the envelope; find a stamp; put that on the envelope; and then get the thing to a mailbox. That is enough trouble to keep some people from commenting, but it is also enough trouble to give someone time to think.
"Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint," Scott wrote. "It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair. This is an ideal. Achievement in such matters is hardly given to man. We can but try, ask pardon for shortcomings, and there leave the matter."
There is not a lot of asking for pardon among online comments. Very much the contrary. While the speed of response makes it easier for unreason to be introduced into public debate, anonymity makes it less necessary to ask for pardon for outrageousness, offensiveness or error. If a person does not have to stand up in public behind public comments, there is less likelihood for that self-imposed restraint Scott wrote about.
Years ago, the Guardian launched an aggregation of blogs and columns and called it "Comment is free." The paper's powers describe it as "the online home of Guardian, Observer print and web-only comment. We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog with contributions from a wide range of commentators from many walks of life."
Above all that commentary is the banner, "Comment is free." In small print, off on the side of the page, is the rest of the sentence, "
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 2 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
