Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Be a part of our online opinion makeover
Today, thegazette.com’s Opinion section begins unfolding a new look and some new elements — including more ways readers can get involved. Look for these additions today or soon (we would appreciate your patience as we work out some of the rough edges):
1) “Your Homers” and “Your Gomers”: The Gazette Editorial Board’s long-running feature on Monday now is also the model for which readers can submit their own Homer or Gomer. These are not the standard letter to the editor. They are brief commentaries about public issues and events that readers believe warrant recognition or fair criticism — especially those involving your community or neighborhood. Some will be selected for publication in The Gazette’s Opinion section. The plan is to publish them on Sundays as a distinct part of an expanded letters package.
Here are the guidelines:
— Length limit of 60 words; focus on one point
— No personal attacks or libelous statements.
— Include your full name and verifiable address and phone number (address and phone number will not be published).
- Be sure you have verified your information.
— Identify your commentary as a “Homer” or “Gomer.”
- Frequency limit on publication: Maximum of once every 30 days, although you are welcome to submit more often.
2) Video replays of Gazette Editorial Board interviews: As Gazette opinion page editor, I facilitate the Editorial Board’s interviews with many local, state and national leaders, experts and policymakers. We’ll be livestreaming many of these discussions and then posting them for replay so that more of you have a chance to review the discussion.
3) Political cartoons: We subscribe to about 10 cartoonists nationwide, and we want to offer our audience access to more of this unique form of commentary.
4) Editor’s Notion: I’m becoming a blogger of sorts. No, I’m not attempting to match what our accomplished columnists, Jennifer Hemmingsen and Todd Dorman, provide. The purpose of my blog is different.
I’ll do my best to answer your questions, invite and consider your suggestions and explain our policies and decisions. All of those things can be transacted by phone or email. However, this platform expands the opportunity and makes it easier for some folks.
The blog also will be used to invite in advance any questions you might have for the Editorial Board’s guests so we can incorporate some of them into the discussion. We know that you have ideas about issues that can help enrich these sessions.
The online changes are a work in progress and likely always will be. We’ll see what works, what should be changed, and consider other features, including those you might suggest.
The bottom line is that your participation is valued.
And as is the practice for TheGazette.com in general, we will continue to enforce The Gazette’s rules of engagement for online comments and other reader submissions. We invite and encourage robust, candid and civil discourse. The personal attack stuff — forget it.
Stick to issues and ideas, and back them up with credible sources.
Should be great for folks seeking to voice their opinion!
Good changes. I think one more thing might be interesting and would invite people who read the paper to look at the on-line version: take the more interesting comments or entire discussions and put them in the newspaper itself. What I find lately is that I look at the newspaper and then I enjoy looking to see what people have to say on-line. (Believe it or not I read more than I comment.)
Laura, they already usually pull a few comments from a topic or story posted online and post them on the back page of the print edition every day except Sunday.
Oh – right. I think that could be moved and expanded.
I congratulate you on what looks to be some very good changes. Thank you.
The other change I would suggest is a little more horsepower in your computer server. There are times when it appears that the server cannot handle the load and response time when navigating is painfully slow.
This might be workable, except I think the gazatte will be slashing out all the stuff that doesn’t fiit their plans, unless of course the writer has an opposing opinion and the commets can be labeled as coming from a crazy. My personal experience says this is more about generating revenue than any real attempt at providing a wide range of opinions and knowledge so people are better informed and can make more informed choices.
Site administration can be wildly inconsistent. You edited one of my comments because I told another user to work on his reading comprehension. Yet, take a look at the thread about Thomas Walker’s letter which got the ISU campus all worked up. Yet another user took yet another shot at the fact I teach at Kirkwood, and you leave stuff like that up all the time.
Maintaining consistency is a challenge, and gray areas can make it difficult for difference people to discern whether our rules have been violated. Several people do admin, including me, and I know Lyle Muller, Gazette editor and online coordinator, continues to review the process and how we can make it better. Thanks for the feedback.
I think it’s unfair that people with made up or fake names are allowed to comment. When a name is turned into the Gazette I expect a thorough vetting of the name not the response “can I prove that it’s not real”. It’s not my job to do that, it’s the Gazette’s. Anyone can open an email account and then start using a fictitious name. Get name, ask for a valid address, check public records; it’s not that hard. If you can’t (or won’t) enforce all of the rules of engagement then shut it down.
Don, I think it is unreasonable to force anyone to comment on the Internet with their real name. There are many reasons people may not want to post using their real names and probably the most important is personal safety.
The content of comments posted anonymously can be controlled by moderators as well as the sources of comments monitored whether the person is using their real name or not.
I don’t understand at all, the importance you place on this issue. Shut it down because you feel some people are not using their real names, really?
Why not make a provision for those of us who use our real names to voluntarily verify them and then note that on the profile or as part of the avatar?
I agree that it is important to use one’s real name. It promotes civility.
I think it is unfortunate that certain writers who comment regularly on published letters have subscribed to a conspiracy mythology relative to the Gazette Opinion Staff.
Myth #1: The odious Gazette Opinion Staff (think sinister,totalitarian) serves only to thwart the poor but honest comment writers in their attempts to educate and enlighten the public.
Myth #2: The Gazette regularly employs the insidious “planted letter” technique, with letters selected to inflame the public and increase readership. This technique serves to confuse and confound the poor but honest comment writers and divert them from their critical role in online discourse.
1. Freedom of Expression means that people have the right to make anonymous comments.
2. Limiting comments to 60 words is fair if and only if the
Gazette, it affiliates and its lackeys will limit their own comments to 60 words. The marginal cost of extra words on the Internet is nearly Zero. Adapt by making use of that fact.
3.Free speech means back and forth exchange. Not limited numbers of comments.
Here’s what I’m noticing in the past week or so: articles are being moved to different websites that require a separate login. Today’s example is the Clinton County vote mixup article. It’s in the Gazette but not part of the on-line Gazette page – instead, I’m sent to http://iowacaucus.com/2012/01/04/clinton-county-caucus-gaffe-one-of-many-morning-after-questions/
which is entirely off the Gazette website – although I see it’s “powered by the Gazette and KCRG” which is fine. What gives?
I very much like to read the comments that appear on these pages. I do think however that the CRG on line should try to limit the number of words that can be posted and also limit the number of back and forth argument type responces. Some of these seem to go on and on and stray from the main issues.
1. Freedom of Expression means that people have the right to make anonymous comments.
2. Limiting comments to 60 words is fair if and only if the
Gazette, it affiliates and its lackeys will limit their own comments to 60 words. The marginal cost of extra words on the Internet is nearly Zero. Adapt by making use of that fact.
1. Potentially limit the number of comments by one individual on a given LTE or staff piece. This would cause us all to be more reflective of our own comments before posting them, and reduce repeating the same argument over and over. It should eliminate many of the comments that are off subject or cheap shot sarcasm?
2. Another is the LTEs’ on the lost vote. as of today many of those discussions are no longer needed. Wouldn’t it be helpful to remove them from the daily online format and perhaps archive them separately, online so you wouldn’t need to sort through all of them to find some that are still in the news.
Two or three comments per article should be plenty. Some folks get real carried away.