'Boos' to The Post-Star

Every Mondays, the Glens Falls daily Post-Star gives 'boos and bravos' to local newsmakers. I know self-appointed watchdogs usually don't like being watched themselves but I'm going to insist on giving the paper a 'boo.'

The daily revamped their website a few months ago. I actually like the new site. Granted, the quality of reporting hasn't changed so it's a bit like putting old wine in a new bottle. But some of the bells and whistles of the new site are worth checking out. One of the best things about the new site is that listeners can leave comments.

But recently, the paper stopped allowing comments on letters to the editor.

According to a note now appearing on the site:

The Post-Star has decided to remove all commenting on letters to the editor at this time. Our letter writers are held to a standard that requires them to sign their letters. The commenting feature online does not require the respondent to be identified. We don’t feel that is fair. If anyone would like to respond to a letter, they must be held to the same standard as the letter writer and be identified. They can do this by writing their own letter to the editor through the Web site or responding directly to the editor.

Under other circumstances, I might have sympathy with this argument. I regularly submit signed letters to the editor. I spent four years as an opinion columnist and three as opinion editor at my college newspaper. We didn't allow anonymous letters to the editor and, as someone who signed everything he published and often took flack for it, I agreed with this policy.

But the specifics of The Post-Star's situation makes this new policy a bit hypocritical.

For one thing, comments must be approved by a Post-Star staff member before publication. Any online reader comments that are libelous or defamatory can easily be rejected by the paper without ever appearing on the site. So can comments that comprise 'racial, religious or personal attacks, slander, profanity, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers or Web site addresses that are for personal or promotional gain.'

Second, I'd be happy to 'be held to the same standard as the letter writer and be identified' except that published letters to the editor can only be posted once a month, where comments can be made on any article. I thought the purpose of the comments' feature was to facilitate dialogue. A mere 300 words once a month doesn't make for productive dialogue.

Third, the paper regularly publishes in its printed pages anonymous cheap shots by staff members under the guise of something called Don Coyote. This invention even had a blog of cheap shots for a short while before dying a deserved death due to disinterest. I don't always agree with everything Ken Tingley writes, but at least he has the guts to sign his name to his comments, as to other Post-Star columnists. Why do different standards apply to 'Don Coyote'? Why is it permissible for employees of the paper to make snide, anonymous cheap shots but not for readers?

Finally, the daily already publishes anonymous reader comments in its printed pages. I believe it's called 'It's Debatable' and readers are allowed to comment up to 150 words on a topic of the paper's choice. I'm not keen on this feature precisely because of its anonymity and I've refused to participate in it. These anonymous commenters aren't held to the same standard as regular letter writers, yet the paper actively promotes this feature.

Since letters to the editor are usually focused on local topics, the comments' feature had been the only real generalized (ideologically diverse) discussion forum dedicated to issues of regional concern. Their closure is an unfortunate blow to local dialogue.

Correction: An earlier version of this incorrectly identified the name of the Post-Star's anonymous reader comment feature. It is called 'It's Debatable.'