Richmond Times-Dispatch leads the way by discontinuing anonymous comments

My hat is off to the Richmond Times-Dispatch for their new policy regarding anonymous commenters. In Sunday's edition they announced:

Beginning this week, there will be no more anonymous comments on TimesDispatch.com.

It has always been a mystery to me as to why newspapers began to allow anonymous trolls to post to their sites in the first place instead of following the same strict rules used for letters to the editor. Letter writers must include their address and phone number and may receive a phone call to verify, and letters follow a certain rule of decorum.

The anonymous troll problem is not just at the Richmond Times-Dispatch but also at the Staunton News Leader and the Waynesboro News Virginian as well as newspapers nationwide.

Personal attacks, name-calling, and slanderous rants are common and, quite frankly, beneath the dignity of any reputable publication, something I wrote about in 2007 ("The trolls at the Staunton News Leader") and again last week ("Leaders lead ... anonymous blog trolls cower").

Most trolls have an agenda, as noted recently when anonymous News Leader commenters slammed a local  Augusta County supervisor with random accusations. However, when the supervisor left a comment that included his phone number and address along with an offer to talk personally with the anonymous commenters about any issues of concern to them, it was ignored. Instead, they changed their tactic and rationalized it was a conspiracy to uncover who they were so they could be attacked, and continued with the cowardly comments. That is not a quest for knowledge; that is an agenda.

Such is the irrational reasoning of trolls who wish to remain hidden in the shadows. It would be nice to see the local newspapers make anonymous commenters accountable by requiring their real names just as they do for letters to the editor.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Richmond Times-Dispatch for being a leader in restoring civilized behavior to the internet ... at least as far as newspaper commenting.

I agree ... but will it ever happen?

Jim Hoeft has reflected on the purpose of Bearing Drift and the blogosphere and the sharing of ideas/discussions/disagreements. I agree with what he says ... but will it ever happen? In the arena of "macaca" and "Bush is a Nazi" and the abundant use of profanity, will there ever be civility in the political blogosphere?

Silence from dems continues ... do they approve of Joe Stanley's ODBA/NAMBLA linking?

Jim Patrick's post today begins:

Just over a year ago I listened in amazement as a party extremist berated Virginia’s Lt. Governor for using the term ‘Democrat Party’ instead of ‘Democratic Party’ in a speech. Though I later verified this is technically correct, I couldn’t understand his fanaticism over a minor grammar error. Back then, I didn’t understand. Now I do.

Not only the dems' obsession with "democrat/ic" but also their dirty tricks are addressed by Mr. Patrick including the recent Joe Stanley/ODBA/NAMBLA controversy ... and the amazing silence from the democrats concerning Stanley's linking the conservative Old Dominion Blog Alliance name, unbeknownst to those clicking on it, to the North American Man-Boy Love Association:

The act was hateful, and should be condemned by reasonable people on both the right and the left. Those on the right of Virginia’s political spectrum have already condemned it. We’re still waiting for the first peep from his employers, political partners, or Party officials.

Read all of Jim Patrick's post More Party(D) Woes.

Jerry Fuhrman at From On High has posted On That Franklin County Demcoratic Chairman in which he gives background on Franklin County Democrat Chairman Joe Stanley's past dirty tricks of redirecting links from one domain name to another ... and links to a Roanoke Times article that gives more background on how Stanley has used this type of trick for a while.

Scott's Morning Brew writes Joe Stanley, Yellow Dog Strategy, Roscoe Reynolds, Eric Ferguson and the pedophilia site…

Yellow Dog continues ... do lib bloggers defending Stanley agree with what he did?

Do the liberal bloggers agree with the dirty trick pulled by Joe Stanley?

As the Yellow Dog controversy continues to unfold, some liberal democrat bloggers continue to defend Joe Stanley and his dirty political tricks while attacking the conservative bloggers who are protesting the dirty trick. Other lib bloggers who have preached ethical blogging remain silent.

Do the liberal bloggers agree with the dirty trick pulled by Joe Stanley?

Ethics? Hypocrisy? Double standard? Blogging "ethics"?