Anthony Freedman puts The Communications Council point of view on anonymous comments
By Anthony Freedman
CEO of Host, Sydney
and Chairman of
The Communications Council
It seems the article that Simon Canning published in The Australian yesterday headlined “Bid to expose online ad abuse” has really put the cat amongst the pigeons in suggesting the intention of The Communications Council is to outlaw all anonymous comments.
I think it’s fair to say that The Communications Council Board is not that presumptuous. We are also well aware of the arguments put forward by passionate editors, defending the right for free speech as well as the likelihood that removing anonymity will reduce comments which in turn will reduce site traffic.
Our stance is simple and straightforward. The comments on many industry blogs are mean spirited, unconstructive and more than anything an embarrassment to our industry. They also drive out much of the intelligent and reasoned comment from those who do not want to enter a debate alongside lowest common denominator cheap shots.
We would like to facilitate discussion between the publishers with the aim of removing the mindless negativity and substantially increasing the volume of smart and insightful comment, both complimentary and critical. Ideally we would see an industry wide standard that all would subscribe to.
We would also encourage the leadership in our member agencies to do what they can to achieve the same through dialogue with their own people.
Ambitious? Perhaps, but we feel it would be for the betterment of our industry so we are prepared to try. We are of course mindful that we have no right to impose anything on independent publishers so would not presume to demand draconian reforms.
Unfortunately as an industry we are some way off any resolution, because right now we have editors who are disinclined to work together to help tackle an industry wide issue, and a small minority group of bitter people within (or probably on the periphery of) our industry who would rather continue to belittle others and the work of others than create something of merit of their own.
17 Comments
Really, I can’t see what all the fuss is about.
I always post comments using my real name.
Me too.
Are you saying it hasn’t always been compulsory?
I just read Simon’s article on The Australian website – it started off well, interesting stuff, but it didn’t really go anywhere. Surely a man of his journalistic integrity would choose to tackle such an important subject in more than three sentences?
I personally think the idea is fucked.
Hooty.
first world issues
The Communications Council (perhaps it should be called the Anti Communications Council) stance on this is no more than self serving censorship.
It is reactionary, outdated, and a power grab by people who represent a few large agency groups which are by and large the subject of a disproportionate amount of negative comment.
The only thing transparent about this is their pathetic attempt to control opinion through slick and slippery PR.
Clients of the agencies behind this, particularly but not only those in media, telecommunications and any others who care about freedom of expression should be voicing their concern both directly to them and publicly.
Isn’t this all because adnews refused to get involved? They explain why here
http://www.adnews.com.au/adnews/why-adnews-declined-to-meet-with-comms-council-on-anonymous
It all started with this, still not on air a year since it was first announced: http://www.theadbreak.com/host.htm
” . . . right now we have editors who are disinclined to work together to help tackle an industry wide issue, and a small minority group of bitter people within (or probably on the periphery of) our industry who would rather continue to belittle others and the work of others than create something of merit of their own.”
Why is this an issue, more or less one that is industry-wide? Who says so?
How do you know, Anthony, that the commenters who cause you and your version of the industry, the one you’d like to control, such pain with their comments are a “small minority”? If they are anonymous, as are the overwhelming majority of the commenters on the CB Blog, then what data do you have to support your claim that the “haters” as they’re called by those who really are far too thin skinned for the ad business are in the minority?
Why are the criticisms of the work of others, even the “belittling” of work and individuals, much of which/whom need(s) a good thrashing, and the creation of “something of merit” exclusive propositions? I’m guessing that there are art directors and copywriters out there who do interesting work of their own and still find the time to trash the work of others that they feel is less than what it could be, not to mention CDs who enjoy taking the piss with their competitors who are fond of spreading it way too thick when it comes to PRing themselves and the work of their agencies on the blog.
The real issue here is what does the anonymity of a commenter have to do with the validity, pertinence, gravity, humour, just the importance in general of the comment being made?
The answer is nothing, and the problem as you see it, that “the comments on many industry blogs are mean spirited, unconstructive and more than anything an embarrassment to our industry” is simply your perspective on what others would view as the residue of free speech. I mean really, this industry does just fine embarrassing itself, and most of us are painfully aware of that fact.
The solution is not to censor comments, or to force commenters to identify themselves, and thereby lessen the vitriol by the fear of commenters being ostracised publicly, but for you and anyone else who finds these comments disturbing to ignore them, stop reading them, or simply judge them as you will as not worthy of your attention.
Free societies are by their nature messy. Get used to it, because the same tools that have bought us all greater infiltration of our messages to consumers and the public in general have made the ability to distribute messages of any kind more democratic, and that’s not going to change.
Let’s face it, you’ve been outed by The Australian and now by Mumbrella for your leadership in back room conversations trying to influence media journalists, and we can imagine that you’re a bit embarrassed yourself that you have to come clean, coming out swinging as a strategy was probably your best move. We all get it, but if you stopped for a moment to think seriously, even critically about this issue, you’d realise that even if the major online journals that allow, even encourage anonymous content were to abolish it tomorrow, then another intelligent and entrepreneurial someone would the day after start up a rather underground site championing the anonymous, and everyone would be reading it.
The information genie is out of the bottle, Anthony, and no one, especially not the CC is going to put it back in, so roll with it, write some clever commentary of your own that takes on the very individuals you feel are hurting “your industry”. If they are as marginal, and presumably as untalented as you suggest, then it shouldn’t be hard to send them up.
… and here’s the truth: http://www.campaignbrief.com/2011/06/hartley-recalls-how.html
So this suggests the TCC would have put a submission into Conroy’s media review to regulate the internet? Yes? No? Is there a position on this?
The exposure of TCC back room deals to pressure media journalists and their sites to censor public commentary has forced the TCC to publicly acknowledge their efforts.
Would we have been reading this post otherwise? Doubtful. Which says everything we need to know about the TCC leadership’s relationship to free speech and an open internet.
Is this our media body, or does it belong to those who would marginalise the anonymous as non-entities?
Anonymity is the only guarantee that honest opinion has an opportunity to be read. If the price is allot of noise along with that comment, so be it. An open society is messy, so get used to it.
One way you could solve all the issues here Michael:
People log in with their twitter account and hashtag to comment.
Suddenly your site is spreading all over the internet.
I’ll give that one to you for free, since I know you’re a decent bloke.
Shouldnt the Australian community be more focused on supporting each other and boosting its international reputation, without the use of unprofessional irrelevant slander in place of constructive criticism. Ridding anonymity is not a control of opinion, or freedom of speech as it does not censor you; rather it would provoke people to phrase feedback and opinions appropriately and constructively. Nowhere else in the world in this industry have i seen such unprofessional comments in a professional forum.
@ Man up Australia
“Nowhere else in the world in this industry have i seen such unprofessional comments in a professional forum.”
You’re poorly read. Have a look at Media Bistro’s Agency Spy and read any of the comments sections. This is just one of the many insider journals and blogs online from the US and UK centred on the worlds of advertising and marketing, and you’ll find that the anonymous commenters are quite opinionated, very critical, and sometimes downright insulting about work they see PR’d in the media and the individuals who make it. It’s the way of the world, so you shouldn’t expect us all to row together on your good ship lollypop.
A competitive business we’re in, with strong characters, and stronger opinions. Criticism does not need to be constructive in order to make a point, if that point is relevant and has the ring of truth about it. Debunking the spin wrapped around a good deal of the self-promotion done by the industry is constructive by it’s very nature.
Perhaps, researching your topic before venturing out with unsupported and incorrect assertions would be as helpful as your attempts to purge the industry of the criticism you find “unprofessional” or inappropriate, as most of us would find professionalism to include competence first and foremost.
It’s a bigger world out there MuA than you might suspect, and it can all come your way via the internet.
And people with comments such as ‘I personally feel the idea is fucked,” seem well read? Maybe everyone should articulate their opinions directly in regards to the work done or article, instead of making unrelated immature lowblows with comments about someone’s personal appearance for example.
A commenter with the moniker of Man up Australia is sensitive to someone slagging off their personal appearance, or telling them that their idea is fucked? Hmmmm, sounds awfully precious, little petal for one with so much testosterone in their attitude.
Maybe you should form a language and appropriate comment policing agency. Call it Barney Fife.
Public discourse is courser everywhere these days (have you watched parliamentary question time?), and you can bemoan it, or lead by example and let others choose to follow, if your example is compelling enough, instructive enough, worthy of being followed, but legislating against the behaviour of others, especially where the victimisation is to one’s sensitivities and not to more serious jeopardies like life and limb?
Open societies are an advanced course, and they come with warts. We’d suggest a thicker skin and a resistance to pressing the censorship button, as it is a very slippery slope. Moreover, if you breeze past the juvenile comments, you’ll find a host of anonymous, or pseudonymous commentary that is quite insightful, often acerbic, but very much in the vein of truth to power and peeling away the pretensions of power in so many of those in this industry who can only hear the sound of their own voices.