I received the following correspondence last week by email. The writer has kindly consented to me publishing and responding to it here.
Dear Online Editor,
Your blogger “Jim Carroll” frequently claims to conduct his discussions with a view to listening to all sides. However this is not the case. In fact, he abuses the position of power you have given him both by trying to intimidate people who post unfavourable comments and – when it suits him – by censoring them completely.
As you will see from what follows, unless opinions pat him on the back or allow him to further his own agenda he:
a) Responds in a condescending, bullying manner
or
b) Refuses to post them
It is his blog and therefore he may feel entitled to do so. But it is also an Irish Times blog, and I would be very surprised if the newspaper condoned this kind of abuse of the position of power it has attained.
Either way, I think it should be pointed out to you that he engages in this practise.
Similarly, I think it should be pointed out to the other people commenting on the blog that their ’stream of consciousness’ merely looks like a broad heralding of approval because it has been designed to be so.
I posted the following to his article
“If you’re going to apologise for all the mistakes in the article, I’d
have thought that the biggest one was where it said that Cathy Davey
won the Choice Music Prize. Naturally, I was surprised that you didn’t
remember who did, seeing as you were the officiator – but maybe you
had too much of Jape’s Champagne and got him confused with her
(although Cathy didn’t have a moustache the last time I looked). Or
maybe she actually won and you owe her 10 grand. Or is she next
year’s top tip – and should Paddy Power close the book before it’s
opened?
I was doubly surprised that you’d notice another error but not this
glaring one – but it suddenly made sense. You don’t actually read the
Irish Times do you? And funnily enough none of the commentators on
your blog do either. Madam will not be pleased.
Comment by Ralph P”
His reply now reads
“Ralph P – what apology for what mistakes? Just pointing out a clarification that needs to be made – and I sure as hell am not apologising for that.
As for the photo caption error, you may not know this but journalists don’t write those captions so that error occured at the production stage. I’ve passed this onto the appropriate people to be corrected online.
Comment by Jim Carroll”
However, this is a very different reply to the one that the comment had initially been given by Mr.Carroll. In this, he made it clear that he had gone to the trouble of tracking down the location from which I had posted, which seems most unusual (unless there I was uploading child porn, in which case it would, of course, be understandable).
In the light of this, I posted the following – or rather attempted to:
“Jim. What’s going on? Earlier, you had posted the following reply to my comment:
‘Ralph P – that error happened in a photo caption, not in the piece, and has already been passed onto Madam.
Good to know you students in UCD read the paper though. You are The Future, after all’
Passed onto (sic) Madam? Onto her head perhaps?
Actually, while grammatical errors are irritating, I was more concerned by your reference to UCD. Were you trying to intimidate me by letting me know that you had checked the IP address from which the comment had come? And why was the comment subsequently changed? Were you told to stop cyber-bullying students? Do you really think it’s big and clever to go around telling people that you know where they live/work/study?
Either way, your new comment is condescending in the extreme. “You may not know this but journalists don’t write those captions.” So who writes them: automatons? Are editors or sub-editors or whatever they’re called not journalists too?
Not meaning to be pedantic, your new answer also repeats the same grammatical error. For future reference, it’s: ‘on to’. The ‘on’ is connected to the ‘passed’, not to the ‘to’. Unless you’re talking about getting onto the bus…
The fact is that the reference in the Irish Times to Cathy Davey winning the Choice Prize was incorrect. And if you were aware of it, why did you not clarify it earlier?
Thus, your comment ignores the central point I was making: aren’t you embarrassed about not reading the newspaper that employs you? I know I would be.”
In what is an obvious piece of censorship, this comment has not been posted to his blog, nor has he acknowledged that he edited or rather changed his earlier comment.
I would like this clarified to the readers of his blog, either through the corrections & clarifications column in the Irish Times or through a posting on his blog by the online editor.
Thank you.
Ralph P
********************************************************
Dear Ralph,
Thanks for your mail. I’ll try to respond to the points you’ve raised.
First, the points we agree on. As a fellow pedant, I deplore Jim’s misuse (twice) of “onto” and will have a stern word with him about it. In the same spirit, may I take the liberty of pointing out that, when you say Jim “engages in this practise”, you are making the common but no less regrettable mistake of confusing “practise” (the verb) with “practice” (the noun).
As to the thrust of your complaint, I do not accept that Jim abuses any position of power he may have. Nor do I agree with your characterisation of his responses as condescending or bullying. And finally, I don’t agree with your description of his refusal to publish one of your comments as “censorship”.
Let’s go back to the original conversation. You wrote:
“If you’re going to apologise for all the mistakes in the article, I’d
have thought that the biggest one was where it said that Cathy Davey
won the Choice Music Prize. Naturally, I was surprised that you didn’t
remember who did, seeing as you were the officiator – but maybe you
had too much of Jape’s Champagne and got him confused with her
(although Cathy didn’t have a moustache the last time I looked). Or
maybe she actually won and you owe her 10 grand. Or is she next
year’s top tip – and should Paddy Power close the book before it’s
opened?
I was doubly surprised that you’d notice another error but not this
glaring one – but it suddenly made sense. You don’t actually read the
Irish Times do you? And funnily enough none of the commentators on
your blog do either. Madam will not be pleased.”
Is this a friendly, conversational comment? Does it add to the sum of human knowledge? I humbly submit it does not. It’s a bit abrasive, not particularly pleasant and casts aspersions on Jim’s ability to do his job(s). In the cut and thrust of online banter, it’s within the bounds of what’s generally seen as acceptable, which I suppose is why it was approved.
Which is all fine. But it’s a little rich to complain then about Jim’s “condescending” reply. What did you expect? Is there a rule that states bloggers should accept and publish whatever’s flung at them, whatever the tone, and only respond with amiable politeness?
As for identifying your location, this is a simple process available to anyone using a WordPress blogging platform, and Jim has used it effectively in the past to point out that certain anonymous posters may have particular agendas. I don’t think UCD has any particular stake in the Isn’t New Irish Music Great debate, so I don’t know why he did it in this case. But I honestly can’t see how it can be characterised as “cyber-bullying”?
As a matter of interest, would you have made the same comments at the outset if you were not anonymous? I ask because I find myself increasingly of the view that the disadvantages of anonymity far outweigh the advantages when it comes to providing a forum for online debate conducted with some civility.
The cut and thrust of online debate is often a lot edgier and more personalised than you’ll get in traditional print or broadcast media. However, the same standards apply online as do in our newspaper. But, as with the newspaper, there may be substantial differences of tone across different sections, depending on what is most appropriate to the subject matter or the platform.
In the case of all our blogs, writers publish, edit and moderate their own blogs but are answerable ultimately to the Editor through me as online editor. They are permitted to edit their posts and comments, if they wish to do so on reflection. They also make the decision on whether or not to publish individual comments. To describe this as “censorship” seems to me to misunderstand the meaning of that word. If commenters feel they are being unfairly treated, they always have the option of contacting me directly, as you have done.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points you’ve raised, as they are important ones for us to consider. But in this context, I do believe the accusations (condescension, bullying, censorship) are simply not justified.
Two last quick things: I don’t know (and nor is it any of my business) whether Jim regularly reads the print edition, but since he was at In the City in Manchester that week, it’s hardly surprising he was using the online version. And yes, as a former sub-editor, I can confirm that they are indeed journalists (but don’t get me started on the whole writer/sub-editor relationship thing).
Best,
Hugh