A weekly editor has hit out at the practice of allowing anonymous comments and letters from “faceless people” to be published by newspapers and their websites.
Roger Hawes, who leads the Bucks Herald, has written a comment piece questioning why the press and other media organisations let nameless people “give the world a piece of their mind from the safety of their virtual world”.
He asks whether it is time for editors to turn away anonymous “armchair critics” and demand names and addresses from contributors, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
In common with most newspaper websites, the Johnston Press-owned Herald itself continues to allow anonymous comments but in his piece Roger argued for a return to the days when people’s views were only respected if they were prepared be named.
He wrote: “In this world of online banter it seems OK to hide behind a handle, lashing out, antagonising, being critical and sometimes downright rude, from behind the ‘safety’ of a keyboard.
“This culture has to some extent become part of social media too although if you engage on the likes of Facebook, you at least know who the abuse/comments are coming from.
“Now, the letters pages in this and many other newspapers are becoming littered with writers unwilling to publish their full addresses and often names.
“Some would say that surely the decision to publish lies with the editor. Well that is true but the tide of anonymity is now so ingrained in the digital and print media that it has become common practise to adhere to the requests of your readers.”
He said that increasingly members of the public who appeared in stories also did not want to be named because of a fear of retribution.
Roger added: “However, offer the chance to have your say using some silly made up name, online in particular, and suddenly you can tap in to a culture of emboldened critics, very happy to lash out and give an opinion whatever the subject.
“So is it time for editors to stand up and be counted, to turn away these faceless people and to shut down the channels to these hoards of armchair critics happy to give the world a piece of their mind from the safety of their virtual world?
“Given that the unnamed contributor has to be monitored (online) 24/7, and the legal dangers they pose, I think perhaps it is time to turn back the clock and unless there are exceptional circumstances, no name and address, mean no God-given right to an audience.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Every letter in the publication I edit comes with a full name and address, including the house number!
Report this comment
Quite right. People who hide behind ridiculous made-up names should be banned from having an opinion.
Report this comment
Absolutely with Roger on this. These so-called armchair critics love to snipe from the side lines protected by the veil of anonymity and their silly pseudonyms and without having the guts to stand up and be counted.
Report this comment
The rule of my paper was if the letter was to be published as “name and address supplied” then the name and address had to be known by the paper. Pretty simple really!
Report this comment
Don’t worry about it, Rog. The best way to respond tp any comments via the web is to let them write what they need to get off their chests and respond calmly and sensibly to any comments made. Simples
Report this comment
You mean just like the ‘comments’ on HTFP!
The regionals jumped on the bandwagon of digital and internet news communication. They now publish/allow comments on the news they publish, and hope to run this just like the Letters Pages of the printed paper. It’s a sign of the times. If you want 24/7 news, and you want to monitor responses, then you have to install monitors (journalists?) 24/7, instead of sacking them to save costs.
Report this comment
While I am with you Roger, newspapers might also be honest enough to stop using stupid bylines such “by a staff reporter” or by a “Chronicle reporter” when they plainly are not, unless the editor does not know the name of his own reporters!
I think printing house numbers is simply asking for trouble.
The problem with letters is unless you employ someone to check every address (no chance on most papers!) they can simply make up a name.
Report this comment
Full marks for irony Confused. Real names should be used.
Report this comment
Thing is, it’s all about hits. If commenters lose anonymity, many won’t comment. And those who do will be more anodyne. So fewer people will visit the websites. Careful what you wish for, Roger.
Report this comment
Many newspapers have not helped themselves by their willingness to re-run anonymous digital comments in paper, complete with misspellings and absent punctuation and grammar. This can often be mistaken for space-filling.
Report this comment
HTFP comments are pseudonymous usually because we don’t want to be sacked. That rarely applies to comments on stories. But it’s all about clickbait; if people have to reveal their identities they won’t say all the offensive, infuriating things that whip up a storm of irate page views from red-faced and foaming unique users.
Report this comment
So the media’s role is to stifle debate and opinion? Not from where I’m sitting.
Report this comment
Easy answer regarding online comments is to set up comments only via Facebook. Plenty of websites already do this.
Report this comment
Roger is right. Pseudonyms can be useful in their right place but too often the mask is abused. Just ask anyone who has to sub a letters page.
Report this comment
It’s clearly marked on my letters pages that we don’t accept anonymous letters. If they’re not prepared to put their name to their opinions I’m not prepared to give over space in my newspapers to them.
Report this comment
Society has changed a lot from the “old days”, and not for the better.
My neighbour’s neighbour recently went around and “slugged” someone who reported her to the RSPCA for keeping her horse in the back garden without any kind of shelter. The aggressor ended up in court, and was fined with the horse being taken away. That is an example of what many people are today…pigs.
Managements must remember that the reporter and contributor can get it in the neck out on the street quite easily for what he or she reports.
Contributors to HTFP must be allowed anonymity if they desire it. Monopoly newspaper groups are going through a massive crisis with loyal staff being kept in the dark until their careers are wrecked. Quite often, only by reading HTFP is it possible to find out what is going on. If their names appeared, many would get the chop.
We live in a very vindictive and revengeful society, anybody who thinks otherwise should just consider the crime stories in their own newspapers.
Report this comment
The difficulty I have always had is finding enough website comments to republish in the paper. Take away the nutters, the offensive, the personal insults, the idiots, those that haven’t read the story properly, the spammers, the bandwagoners etc and there’s not much left. All that which apparently seems ok for the website is generally not suitable for the paper itself. Why one and not the other? It all comes down to legal difficulties and whether or not to moderate.The problem has arisen from having no policy on anonymous website comments to start with and not realising just how it would grow and be commandeered by those to whom we would not normally give the time of day. How many true, ‘normal’ readers actually bother to comment anyway?
Report this comment
some of the stuff posted under stories on my former paper’s website was pure poison, in fact most of it was.
Until someone is actually punished for anonymous comments that won’t change.
Report this comment
When I was a letters page editor, I often found myself totally rewriting them so they made some resemblance of sense. Some regular contributors made good points, but getting them down on paper was a whole new ball game. The published item sometimes was very little like the original except for the sentiments expressed. Adding a name on the end seemed totally irrelevant.
Report this comment
I agree – false names should be banished. And Mrs Direction and the young Direction children agree with me.
Report this comment
Surely reporters snatching Twitter and Facebook comments and printing them in paper to fill shapes is the lowest laziest form of hacking. Often spotted on death tributes. But it is the modern industry, so get used to it. What a degraded profession (job) hacking is now.
Report this comment
Err… Mr Hawes, if you’re comfortable with the slightly lesser issues presented by Facebook comments then why not embed them into your website and, equally, only use them in your newspaper?
Yes, you still get issues with fake accounts but not as many as other social networks and they’re easily blocked. Plus, the majority of your readers won’t need to go through another lengthy sign-up process to have their say.
But wait, there’s the problem. Your bosses want to gather as much data as they can about the readers so they can sell to them more effectively. The only problem is, most of the data is false and therefore useless, but they still persevere.
Report this comment
Very often you can learn a lot from anonymous contributors. As with unnamed sources, which journalists use all the time, you are more likely to get the unvarnished truth from someone unwilling to publish their name than those who go ‘on the record’. Usually, there are very sound reasons for anonymity, job security and fear of retribution being just two of them. The great Watergate investigation was based on information supplied by an unnamed source known only as Deep Throat. Even the editor of The Washington Post didn’t know who he was.
However, the editor has to be sure there is nothing libellous, malicious or reckless about what is being said. Pure journalistic instinct usually tells you whether info is ‘right’ or not.
The internet has spawned a generation of half-witted trolls, but their rubbishy outpourings are easily detected. If editors apply traditional standards of decency, it’s not hard to fillet out the oafs who abuse the system.
Report this comment
‘An editor ‘ so why not use your name on here??
Steer pike – when I post it’s not for fear of being sacked, many I work with across all departments have had enough and are looking to leave anyway, it’s usually because there’s no platform where I work to do so as the yes man culture pervades at all levels and any one questioning a directive,brief or action is seen as ‘not being on board the bus’ as they laughingly call it.
It’s often borne out of frustration that many have seen bad mistakes and ill thought out decisions put in place when no ones thought to seek the views of the workforce, just the same managers who are only interested in covering their own backsides and keeping their jobs so will not want to be seen challenging or questioning decisions or plans from their bosses irrespective of the impact on staff or the business.
If there was better staff communication as opposed to company BS and a forum or opportunity to ask questions without fear of reprisal then many staff would do so and less would feel the need to comment anonymously on HTFP.
Report this comment
Made up name. Spot on. Middle managers are just a bunch of spineless mortage-laden toadies.
Report this comment
Agree with comments here slamming anonymity – but they’ve used aliases to be anonymous when writing these comments here! Me included….Pardon us snipers…
Letters pages in some papers would have reduced content because some write in making good points but insist on “name and address supplied.”
Report this comment