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
    county's history.

    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)
    copyright protected

                  Do papers generate more lies than anonymous blogs?
       Mixed review of paper ranting anonymous rumormongering