Where, Oh Where, Has Civility Gone?
Has the Internet and its anonymity ruined civility? Let me be more precise. Has our ability to instantaneously respond to issues that we see reported in the media given rise to intemperate thoughts, comments or attitudes? What makes me ask the question is reading the reader comments to articles in any given newspaper, on any given day, on almost any topic.
One would have thought the comments are moderated but maybe this would be seen as a violation of free speech. Doesn’t free speech have some limits in the newspaper? I just don’t get why readers who respond to articles in the online version of newspapers have to demonize people with whom they disagree. I’ve contacted our own local newspaper numerous times on this issue but nothing has changed.
Whether the issue of education or health care funding, bullying, the air show or almost any other endeavour covered by the local paper, there is almost a guarantee that someone will either see a conspiracy, a government rip-off or some other nefarious plot to impose something on themselves or others. Is it the anonymity allowed that allows them to berate politicians, newsmakers, civil servants, immigrants and others they have a problem with without identifying themselves? Whatever happened to civil discourse where one can disagree without being disagreeable? If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at the comments on almost any issue covered in the local paper. Now, maybe it’s not a big issue because the people who write their missives tend to do so in response to those written by others. One tends to see the same usernames over and over again and they often battle with each other. I think it’s great that they like to be involved with the news of the day. More power to them. What bothers me is the vitriol that is spread and the assumptions that are made. You may know about the theory of attribution where we tend to ascribe the worst possible motives to others who may have offended us while diminishing any role we may have played. In this theory we don’t give others the benefit of the doubt that we may allow ourselves. If people want to comment in this fashion and fight with each other, maybe the newspapers can create a separate page where commenters can talk to themselves and not attach comments to the bottom of the online article.
I am not alone in noticing this issue. Rosie DiManno, a long-time columnist with The Toronto Star recently wrote a column decrying the anonymity allowed commenters noting that much of what is written can be considered libelous. She made the point that her editors would refuse her columns if they contained the same kinds of unproved allegations allowed in online responses. People seem to feel that the internet has given them something akin to Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak allowing them to scurry around the halls of the online commenting world unseen and free from responsibility.
Look what happened with Amanda Todd. Online bullies were able to create a world of hell for her. Only too late are we realizing the power of a few keystrokes to hurt and maim. The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council has partnered with the Waterloo Catholic District School Board on its THINK campaign that asks people to use the following screen prior to sending a text:
T – Is it True
H – Is it Hurtful
I – Is it Illegal
N – Is it Necessary
K – Is it Kind
These filters are being used by students who have put a blue elastic band around their phones to remind them the texting can be used to bully or defame another. Many young people are unaware that some things they text or attachments they send are covered under the Criminal Code and they could be held liable for their actions. This proactive approach will not, by itself, solve the problem of online bullying but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Maybe this simple acronym could be used by those who comment online and whose comments seem to pass unfiltered through our local newspaper’s edit process.
But it’s not just the Internet where we see a lack of civility; I was recently at a local mall handing out “Say Hi” buttons to passersby during Crime Prevention Week and to chat with them about the work of the Crime Prevention Council. It was a study in social psychology to see the effort some people went to not to make eye contact with me. Their ability to duck out of my way would make them valuable assets to any major hockey team. One would think I was asking them if they would like typhus or Ebola instead of a Say Hi button. It was actually quite comical. Many responded to my offer of a button with a curt “I don’t live in Waterloo”. I guess saying hi is prohibited by a city bylaw in their respective region.
Is there a correlation between a less civil society and increased crime? Some think so, though the definition of ‘civility’ may relate more to neighbourhood development that what might archaically be called ‘good manners’. Certainly healthy neighbourhoods that are well taken care of and where neighbours actually know each other mitigate against rampant street crime. So, I may be putting myself out there by suggesting that if we were simply nicer to each other, in how we speak, how we write, how we drive, how we shut off our iPhones and BlackBerries in theatres and while waiting in lines at the market (you get the picture) might we end up with a safer place to live? Isn’t that what we want?
We all have a part in this; we could all use a little more ‘THINK-ing’. And maybe, the newspapers could rethink their position on moderating comments or at least, raise the standards by which it judges comments as appropriate.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council.