Back in the day of print news and magazines, there was such a thing as “Letters to the Editor”. This section contained comments, pro or con, about an article, or issue which a reader felt compelled to add their two cents. This was a benefit to both the publisher and the columnist because this increased readership, which increased sales, and, thus hopefully increased the salary of the author of article.
These letters would go to the Editorial staff, who would check the authenticity of the source and, if necessary, edit the content before their letter was published. Obviously, no editor of a reputable publication would allow comments which included vulgarity or verbal personal attacks to be printed.
However, with the freedom of the Internet, this is no longer the case.
As a writer of political commentary, I get paid a few pennies from revenue share sites. When readers read something they like, I’ll get a “thumbs up” rating, or a one line comment. My views on current events are, at times, controversial, but I was not prepared for the onslaught of vicious comments I received on my commentary on Michael Jackson’s death, Heath Care Reform, or Ron Paul’s movie debut in “Bruno.”
It wasn’t the content of the article most were commenting on. These comments were personal. YOU are a, ____fill in the blank, and much more. Why people take the time to send this garbage into cyberspace, I have no idea. Its totally unproductive and, as the “editor” of my blog I also feel well within my professional powers to delete these personal, unprofessional attacks. And I do so...frequently.
When I looked at the fifty or so articles I’ve written in the past few months, I noticed that the ones with these types of comments were being read ten times more than the others.
So, here's my dilemma. Do I write commentary on topics I know people will agree with to avoid generating these types of negative responses and make less, or keep writing unpopular views, even those I don't necessarily support, because I know I'll receive more hits, and thus more revenue?
Maybe that's why Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly receive such high ratings. The bigger the controversy, the wider the audience, the more money they make. Even if they don’t necessarily believe in what they’re saying, controversy sells.
But it is not in my nature to write simply to generate income when it means compromising my professional integrity. There isn’t any amount of money that would entice me to sell out in this manner. So, I will continue to write commentary on issues which I feel are interesting, and hope those who disagree will restrain themselves from misusing the freedom of the Internet press.
I welcome the opportunity to debate issues on any topic provided they are expressed in a professional manner. What I will not allow, on any blog are personal attacks, vulgarity, or unsubstantiated rhetoric.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Christine McKellar
Bob Eckstein
King Kaufman
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
I totally agree about the nonsense people post. No matter how much someone annoys me, I always try to at least argue some factual point, or add something to the debate, when I comment on something on the internet.