Danish online media magazine eJour summarizes two recent studies of discussion groups by Jakob Linaa and Ibolya Maricic:

• Anonymity: Participants who identify themselves with their full name generally are more respectful and better able to argue their views than anonymous participants, according to Linaa.
• Moderation: A moderator/editor has a positive influence on the debates.
• Rudeness: Participants feel “liberated” from normal behavioural constraints because they can say whatever they want without being held accountable.

In a report I wrote about commentary journalism and the internet in 2002-2003 (available here, in Norwegian, pdf), major Norwegian newspaper websites’ use of discussion groups was one of the topics. Though I didn’t perform any thorough research, what I found was quite disturbing. All the sites allowed anonymous postings. They still do. And though all of them have implemented a system where users can alert the editors/moderators about unacceptable posts, you didn’t have to read many posts to find utterly embarrassing/crude/dumb statements. A very superficial test of VG Diskutér today again seemed to confirm that first impression.

There are many good points to be made for allowing as free a discussion as possible. The question is how news websites and other sites that are run according to editorial principles should define their role when they host discussion groups. VG, for example, explicitly waives responsibility for all statements made by participants in the forum. This is in fact a quite astonishing abdication from time-honoured editorial principles which VG would never contemplate for its readers’ letters page in the printed paper.

Traditionally, the chief editor is legally responsible for everything the newspaper/website publishes, whether it is written by reporters or readers. Controlling and editing all posts before they are published in a web discussion group would be very costly and tedious (though that might ultimately become necessary if an editor is taken to court over something that was posted in a discussion group. Remains to be seen). An alternative, or a start, could be to raise the entry level:

• Identification: Demand of users that they register with their real name.
• Limited anonymity: Maybe allow for anonymity in some types of groups, as Ibolya Maricic recommends – groups that deal with traumatic and very personal issues.
• Increased intervention: The editorial team could initiate and intervent more often in debates.

The best argument for such a change in editorial policy is to compare discussion group culture with blog culture. Blogs seem to encourage quality, identity, pride in participating in substantial debates, respect for other people’s views – values that are often sorely lacking in the anonymous groups. Now that we have blogs, we see what the discussion groups are lacking.

Journalists and editors should have the guts to go back to the roots and admit this: If we want meaningful debates, we need to demand more of our users. So does education, education, education mean a return to paternalism? Definitely not, because here both sides are teachers. But the editors still must assume responsibility – they decide the rules, their obligation is to strive for the best debate possible. Which is, interestingly, what many bloggers do on their own sites.