RAVES to the local paper for taking a swipe today at anonymous
rumormongering, targeted at political candidates by some on
community discussion boards and other internet sites.
It is natural, of course, to empathize with a former candidate, if his
young, deceased child, indeed, had been mentioned unkindly anywhere
by someone without conscience.
It is another thing entirely for the paper to expect most thinking people
to empathize much with a different former candidate, however.
Agreement, meanwhile, is shared here that it was wrong, if the man's
criminal record had been exaggerated in anonymous blogs to be
worse than it was. That's certainly despicable.
But it is laughable to suggest that anonymous exaggerations of his
criminal record on a blog with limited readership cost someone an
For instance, he got less votes because of other reasons. We all knew
that he -- a former elected county official/and a then county appointed
board/authority member -- was escorted around by another county
board member to obtain his candidate nominating petition signatures
from some non-registered citizens, clearly not on voter registration
lists, since they do not vote.
If that weren't reason enough not to vote for someone, then there's the
infamously unforgivable 2012 censuring of his fellow housing authority
board member and hateful allegations against that fellow board
member and a county commissioner for unfounded, stupid reasons.
Mysteries being what they are in Fayette County politics and boards,
combined with media that doesn't ask many questions, we'll never
know exactly why and where that censuring just as mysteriously --
poof! -- went away and was never mentioned again.
Nonetheless, again, RAVES, though that the paper broached the
subject of untrue anonymous publications from those without
conscience. More respect would have been earned, had the paper
dared to slap itself for its own role in providing the biggest audience
for the very worst, or one of the worst political slammings in the
Yes, anonymous blogs with limited readership (that often deletes
horrible posts immediately, too, we add) should be accountable for
conspiracy for slander and libel, but contribute little, in comparison to
newspapers in the long run, for spreading lies.
Anonymous blogs really have nothing on an actual newspaper for
spreading misinformation or lies. Think back to quoted, unfounded
statements from a 2011 public meeting, when a woman, without
proof, repeated an anonymously online blogged, untrue message
about a county commissioner, just a few days before election.
How fair really is it for a paper to criticize anonymous, even cruel
blogs, though, when the paper feels no responsibility to confirm
whether a source is telling the truth or not? More recently, one editor
went on record as saying they're not paid well enough to fact check.
How fair is it, too, for papers not to review reader added comments
online to stories, when some quoted or written about in the story see
errors and offer clarifications or helpful information withheld from
(5 Apr 15)
Do papers generate more lies than anonymous blogs?
Mixed review of paper ranting anonymous rumormongering