Jan 21, 2011, 3:06 PM EST
Jeff Pearlman has a column up over at CNN today that’s getting a lot of notice. Seems he tracked down and confronted some people who went after him over at his personal blog, leaving obnoxious or obscene comments or otherwise acting like jerks.
I won’t defend the jerks for a second. People were linking awful porn and calling Pearlman every name in the book. Totally juvenile and totally unwarranted, no matter what you think of whatever Jeff is writing about. It’s the kind of stuff that, if it ever shows up here or showed up at my old blogs, I immediately delete and, if it happens again, I ban the commenter. Two clicks, and he gone, Hawk Harrelson-style.
But it does make me wonder about how an environment in which such comments can happen is created in the first place.
I say I delete and ban, but really, I’ve had to do that less than five times in the nearly four years I’ve been blogging. And I write thousands upon thousands of posts a year, many of which are pointed and critical and — in the case of some teams’ fan bases — sometimes intentionally baiting. Yet I don’t have people going after me like Pearlman has. The comments sections for the places I write aren’t an insane asylum of people linking nasty garbage like Pearlman describes. My comments sections are actually pretty congenial places where a lot of smart stuff gets discussed.
I don’t think it’s because I’m better or that I have a better class of readers or anything like that. When MSNBC links something from HardballTalk on its front page there are millions of eyes who come through here that aren’t “regulars.” It’s a pretty wide cross-section of America. There’s no systemic reason why — when I defend hated figures like Roger Clemens, for example — people aren’t telling me to go die someplace or worse. But they don’t.
I think it has to do with the fact that one truly has to work at cultivating and managing a blog community. And it is a community, as is any blog with a comments section, whether the writer intends it to be or not. My stuff in the post goes on the top of the page, but reader comments below it are every bit a part of the work as a whole. When someone finds the post later, they can read it all as a piece. And a responsible blogger has to take responsibility for the stuff above the page break and below it, and not cultivate an an environment where the readers feel there’s a distance between themselves and the writer. A distance which provides the commenter cover, he thinks, to leave all sense of civility at the door.
How do you do it? By commenting yourself. By responding to reader criticisms in the thread. By acknowledging when you’re wrong and making edits to the original post showing that your product and logic is as transparent as can be and that you’re listening. When someone comes into a comment thread with sharp elbows, you make a point to engage them. Positively if possible, but by arguing back if necessary. And of course, you do so by making it crystal clear that your comment threads have standards. Mine: no racial, misogynistic, homophobic or otherwise bigoted baloney. Fight hard for your points but don’t attack others. No spamming. That’s about it.
Ultimately, it’s the same lesson your dad taught you about dealing with bullies: stand up to them and they quickly back down and skulk away. Let them do what they want without fear of confrontation or retribution? They get out of control.
None of which is to say that Pearlman has created such an environment over at his own blog. I don’t read his blog that often so I don’t know. But I disagree that the bad behavior he is now confronting is merely a function of “the anonymity provided by the internet” and that online spaces are, by design, destined to be home to jerkish behavior. It’s a function of a lot of things, but mostly, I think, it’s a function of commenters who feel like no one is really minding the store or reading what they write. The people Pearlman contacted for his column said as much themselves.
Bad commenter behavior can be nipped in the bud before it starts. I’ve done it here. A lot of other blogs I read have too. It just takes a little work. And some engagement. Show that you’re not an easy mark, and you won’t become one.
- Yasmany Tomas signs a six-year, $68.5 million deal with the Diamondbacks 86
- No, the Red Sox signing Pablo and Hanley is not proof that baseball needs a salary cap 162
- Red Sox announce four-year, $88 million deal with Hanley Ramirez, DFA Juan Francisco 35
- The Cubs have offered Jon Lester “north of $135 million” 68
- Pablo Sandoval’s deal: five years, $98 million plus an option 43
- Kyle Seager, Mariners close to $100 million extension 26
- The 2015 Hall of Fame ballot is out — Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez are new on the ballot 286
- So what would the Red Sox look like with Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval? 49
- The 2015 Hall of Fame ballot is out — Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez are new on the ballot (286)
- No, the Red Sox signing Pablo and Hanley is not proof that baseball needs a salary cap (162)
- More Hall of Fame ballots like Adam Rubin’s please (138)
- Report: Pablo Sandoval chose the Red Sox over the Giants because he felt disrespected (137)
- UPDATE: The Pablo Sandoval-Red Sox deal is done, pending a physical (133)