Mumbrellacast: Should we allow anonymous comments? Plus defamation law (reform), Go Fund Me and BWS’ branding moves, and Ten’s Beverley McGarvey
Our news topics bleed into each other in this week’s episode of the Mumbrellacast. There’s talk of defamation law in the Dylan Voller case, leading to media bosses demanding defamation law reform at their National Press Club appearance. News Corp boss Michael Miller, who appeared on the Press Club panel, chimed in with his support for WPP’s John Steedman, who wrote an open letter to the industry, calling upon media outlets (including Mumbrella) to scrap anonymous comments sections. The team discusses Steedman’s position (and ours), and the value of reader discourse.
Israel Folau also has a high-profile court case on foot. Go Fund Me canned his fundraiser this week, begging the question: was it the right brand move? And speaking of brand moves, should BWS, Australia’s largest alcohol retailer, be partnering with Dry July (and vice versa)?
Plus, Ten’s chief content officer Beverley McGarvey joins Mumbrella’s Hannah Blackiston to discuss ditching the overnight ratings, and its lineup for the rest of 2019.
If anonymous comments are banned what’s to stop anyone using a pseudonym if they do no want their real name to be exposed? Will a moderator want photographic proof of identity ? Surely moderating comments is enough in most cases ?
I understand the anxiety around anonymous comments, but do we really want to enforce that?
By extension in logic journalists would demand no anonymous tip-offs. Or on the flip side, the AFP would be raiding journalists premises .. oh, hang on.
There is an underlying perception that (i) all anonymous comments are negative and full of bile … indeed many are, but not all (ii) forcing a name to be provided would mean providing your actual name … dream on (said The Pirate).
Isn’t the solution to curate comments and enforce the publisher’s editorial policy that way? For example, SMH does that.
I’d like to believe that this has an altruistic intent, but I think not. This is mainly about protecting business interests.
Get this through and it will kill nearly all comment, good or bad. Our industry is small and tight. Who is going to, publicly, either praise or, particularly, sledge other agencies’ or creatives’ work? Who is going to publicly pan a promiscuous client for yet another move. Or plagiarism.
I do agree that a lot of bitter, ignorant and destructive people hide behind anonymity, and the language is positively fetid, but I think most clear thinking people can see past that. (Maybe attacking the language issue would be a good start; most of these morons would struggle to write five words without the use of an expletive.)
It’s a dilemma but I think we have to live with it. Gagging is neither desirable nor acceptable.