Is civilised discourse possible if the commentators remain completely anonymous? What if they choose to identify themselves with geeky handles or instead with an indeterminate “John, London” before launching into an opinion about politics, football or a stock tip?

This is the dilemma publishers everywhere have been grappling with for years as they turn their news sites into interactive town squares. To be sure, this is an important step for journalism. Allowing reader comments at the bottom of a news article or column – as Times Online does with “Have Your Say” – holds the writers accountable for their reporting. At times, reader opinion adds fresh perspective on complicated matters, introducing angles the reporter did not have the time or space or inclination to pursue initially. Plus, all the chatter provides a way to measure public opinion about contentious issues.

If only it were that virtuous.

As Jonathan Weber wrote in these pages earlier this year, online forums also attract a disingenuous and even destructive element that can pollute the editorial integrity of a news site. The commentators may be pushy marketers. They may be racists. They may be political plants looking to spin a story. Or, they must just be inarticulate idiots. These are the kind of people a sensible journalist would automatically exclude from his article.

But is that to say that these viewpoints are not worthy of publication?

The best an editor can hope for with reader commentary is that the intelligent commentary drowns out the self-serving or the silly. If the debate is lively enough it becomes obvious which opinions merit consideration – the well-reasoned ones.

Still, a news publication owes it to its readers to present truthful and intelligent analysis. It also owes its readers the promise that commentators quoted in a story will be held accountable for their views. This is done, at its most basic level, by fully identifying the person or organisation doing the speaking. Reporters cannot always identify their sources. But when they cannot, they go to some lengths to qualify his or her input before publishing it. The aim is to communicate to the reader: “Trust me. I’ve vetted this person.” It doesn’t always work, but that’s not because of lack of scrutiny.

If only it were that easy with public comment. Times Online’s policy, which is also followed by many other publications, is to review all comments before publishing them on the site, but this doesn’t solve the accountability conundrum. Supplying an e-mail and a home town hardly nails down a person’s identity. It is this cloak of anonymity that emboldens many of the most vicious public commentators to launch into an attack on someone else’s views. No doubt, if it were a face-to-face exchange, these commentators would be much more reserved.

At least one news official wants to out these flame-throwers.

Jim Brady, executive editor of The Washington Post’s online division, told a panel of media officials only this week that he would like to see guaranteed anonymity stripped from message board commentators entirely. If a person publishes comments that violate a site’s uses agreement policy, not to mention its editorial standards, they would then be banned for good.

His words are about a day old, and yet it has already generated howls of debate. Should one of the most-read newspapers in the world be advocating the filtering of free speech? And what about the thorny privacy implications? For such a “hook” to work it would require a more detailed collection of readers’ personal data.

The privacy concerns, in my opinion, are not such a big deal as long as these details are not used for any purposes other than to vouch for the identity of a commenter. Providing additional personal details to a trusted newspaper before you fire off your opinion on a matter should be an accepted course of action. After all, if your opinion matters that much, then a few extra lines of detail is a small price to pay. This could have implications for the whistleblowers, I realise, but they tend to make their revelations known directly to journalists, rather than by posting to a message board in the hope that someone influential will notice.

The potential of inhibiting public discourse is a much more troublesome area. The public should be free to comment on matters dear to them, and with relative ease. But they do have a responsibility – as do journalists – to be fair and accurate. The big missing factor is accountability. Journalists are held to this and yet commentators too often are not.

If the citizen journalism movement is really to take off in any meaningful way, this accountability gap must be bridged. Simply put, commentators should understand that removing the cloak of anonymity strengthens their positions.

Think I am way off base? You are free to comment below.

---

Bernhard Warner, a freelance journalist and media consultant, writes about technology, the internet and media industries. He can be reached at techscribe@gmail.com

Explore Tech & Web

• Personal Tech

• The Web

• Gadgets & Gaming