Follow up: The vulgar comment & the school
Cross-posted from The Editors’ Desk on STLtoday.com.
As you can imagine, we’ve watched the uproar closely in the wake of my blog post on Monday. I recounted the case of a person who lost his job at a local school after twice posting a vulgar comment on the Talk of the Day blog on Friday.
We don’t condone vulgarity or obscenity on our site. We won’t tolerate it. Increasingly, we are concerned about the tone of the conversation on STLtoday. When we can, we ban people without apology for bad behavior. We have taken steps to beef up our review process and we’ll continue to enhance those measures to address bad language and intolerant speech.
We also miss stuff, so we depend on you to point out those comments and help us deal with them. That’s not new; we’ve said that from the beginning. We want to hear from you.
On Friday, I saw the reader’s comments, I noticed the comments came from a school and I made the decision to call. The school used its server logs to track the comments, based on the time they were made, to a single work station. After confronting the employee, he resigned. Since then, I’ve heard the criticism, loud and clear.
The criticism of me falls largely in four categories. First, that I overreacted, using an atomic fly-swatter to address the issue. Second, that I somehow violated our privacy policy. Third, that I’ve set some sort of precedent for how we deal with readers who make obscene comments. And fourth, that I was gleeful or boastful in blogging about the incident in the first place.
In the wake of a few days of reflection, I would like to clear up some misinformation and offer some thoughts on what I’ve learned from this episode.
Did I reveal private information? No. I had none to reveal and wouldn’t have if I had it. From me, the school learned three things: 1) That the comments were posted; 2) When the comments were posted; 3) That I knew they came from the school based on the DNS information that accompanied the IP address. The school knows its own IP address. Knowing when the comments were posted allowed them to track them to a specific work station through its own server logs.
Could I have simply banned the reader? Perhaps, but not reliably. Our blogs don’t require registration for reader comments. He used a fake e-mail address. There wasn’t a way on Friday to reliably prevent him from commenting.
Could I have banned the IP address? Yes, but that would have prevented anyone from the school from visiting our site. That’s a step we preferred not to take.
Did I “hunt someone down” after seeing the comments? No. There was no “sleuthing” involved. The name of the school was readily visible on the e-mail alert about the comment.
Was I gloating about this incident? That wasn’t my intention. And I regret that it sounded like I was. I intended to simply explain to readers a step I’d tried to help rein in the vulgarity. I was utterly surprised by the reaction.
Have I set some sort of precedent for STLtoday? We don’t routinely, and would not routinely take the steps I took in this case. For particularly bad cases of abusing our guidelines with vulgarity and obscenity, we would not rule it out.
Did I overreact? Maybe I did. I am constantly frustrated by the difficulty of dealing with this kind of language. And in this case, I was motivated by three things.
First, this came from a school. I didn’t know if it came from an employee, a guest or a student. But I viewed it as a “teachable moment” and a chance, perhaps, to nip something in the bud, to engage the community to help me. I didn’t anticipate that the reader would resign.
Second, the comment was posted, deleted and intentionally posted a second time by the same person. Too much time had elapsed between posts for it to be a mistake or an accident. The reader was determined to post it.
Third, it was easy. As I said, I didn’t have to dig for the school’s information. It was readily available on the e-mail alert. Had it not been there, I may have deleted the comment and moved on.
A few things I’ve learned from this episode:
I should have walked the idea around the newsroom a little more before calling the school. I was motivated by the fact that it was a school. We may have decided to try something less drastic. We may have done exactly the same thing. I couldn’t know without asking.
I should take pains to measure my language carefully. As I said, I hadn’t intended to display glee over this incident. Some of my language in an early version of the blog item and some Twitter remarks was not consistent with my intention.
This isn’t new, but it reinforces what I have always known: Your trust is paramount. I did not and would not violate our privacy policy. I regret that this episode may have cast doubt on that. We take our privacy policy seriously.
We also take seriously our responsibility to monitor conversation on STLtoday. We know there is more we can do, operationally and technologically to improve. We’ve already talked about how and when to escalate our response to bad language.
My colleagues and I agree we are committed to working as hard as we can to foster and encourage discussion on STLtoday. That means taking a measured approach to consider any and all steps — within our policies — to put a stop to it or eliminate it when we see it.
Related Posts:
Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
Kurt's Tweets- Realizing how woefully out of touch I have been with this part of the county. (@ Saint Louis Bread Company) http://4sq.com/5z5Bfh
- Just had my first Gmail phone call -- with my parents -- and the quality was fantastic. Wow. http://tcrn.ch/a8GndI
- Another day, another interview. Fingers crossed. (@ Saint Louis Bread Co) http://4sq.com/avGImL
- Helping my son learn the first 20 elements on the periodic table. Disturbed by how many more elements there are since I studied this stuff.
- Giving blood. (@ St. Martin's Episcopal Church) http://4sq.com/aiWuEk
View Comments on Follow up: The vulgar comment & the school
What bothered me about the incident was that you took it back to the person, rather than dealing with it on your site. I should be able to participate on sites without worrying that my employer is going to have my comments emailed to them. Yes, obviously they can scan their own logs and monitor every site I visit, then click on it to see what I wrote there – but most won't. You took it from the realm of disciplining me on your site to notifying my employer. THAT is the privacy issue people are concerned about – including me! I have some leeway from my workplace to post online, so long as I don't represent myself as speaking on my employer's behalf; but now I don't even want to do that for fear that the P-D will randomly decide that my post – that female-anatomy-word isn't NEARLY as offensive to me, a female, as all the racist crap that gets left on the P-D every single day – is too much and alert my employer. Eesh, it gives me the shivers!
<quote>This isn’t new, but it reinforces what I have always known: Your trust is paramount. I did not and would not violate our privacy policy. I regret that this episode may have cast doubt on that. We take our privacy policy seriously.</quote>
Are you sure you didn't violate your privacy policy? Would the person who resigned from their job agree with this assessment? Do Lee's attorneys?
As I said on your previous post about this, racism (both blatant and subtle) seem to find their way into the comments of every controversial story on stltoday.com and are usually allowed (probably because the more lively the debate, the more page views – but that's just the cynic in me), but one idiot makes a vulgar comment and the school is contacted because of fear about what exactly? The children?
I don't buy it. I think you got upset and since it was convenient you forwarded along hoping to punish the person involved. You got your wish and this person lost their job.
I read the privacy policy of the site, which was violated by this action. There is one paragraph about what an IP address is, and what you state that you area allowed to do with it – measure traffic, tailoring interests. It states nothing about tracking down the IP address source in order to cut off comment abuse at the source.
http://www.stltoday.com/help/privacy-policy
The Voluntary Submission section, or any other section makes it clear that those types of actions will not be taken.
I suppose what you have done is some sort of veiled apology, but do not try to get around the fact that you used an IP address in a way not specified by your privacy policy. It's a black eye on your business, and you'll probably find that this draws attention for precisely the reason it should – it's misuse of personal data, despite the origin.
If comment abuse is an issue, word filters are relatively easy to set up. Require accounts for comments and ban on the email address used to set up the account. Since you're already using cookies, ban on the cookie issued to the offending computer. Put up “abusive comment” links next to every comment. There are much better ways to accomplish your goal, rather than IP vigilante justice for something as tame as the comment left.
A “teachable moment”? How condescending. “It was easy”? Well, that makes it the right thing to do then, doesn't it?
Social Media Guy FAIL.
Suggested tags: holier_than_thou, say_something_i_dont_like_and_i_will_tattle_on_you, nonapology
Mr. Greenbaum,
Certainly, the original poster was being crude. Certainly it was within your perview to ban his comment. Both times.
What were you hoping to achieve by calling the school? If it had been a student, s/he most likely would have been suspended and probably had their computer priviledges revoked. Is it better to have our children in school or at home playing video games and not learning? You mentioned you called the headmaster and I went to a very nice school in W. County with a headmaster. Were you trying to teach that rich, snob kid a lesson?
But instead of teaching that rich punk a lesson, you got someone fired (and make no mistake, this person’s “resignation” was in lieu of being fired). You claim you have no trouble sleeping at night, but you should have trouble looking yourself in the mirror. This person lost their job over a dumb internet joke…if someone called my boss everytime I made a dumb joke on the internet I’d never keep a job. Since you’re culpable in this person’s unemployment – and hey, s/he can’t collect unemployment now since it was a “voluntary resignation” – are you going to help s/he find a new job?
To top it off, the original title of your blog entry shows the satisifaction you felt getting this person fired. “Post a vulgar comment while you’re at work, get fired.” How else are we, as readers, supposed to interpret this other than what’s been said a 1,000 times before: do something I don’t like, I’ll get you!?!
Honestly, you’re not qualified to do your job. And I don’t say that as a reflection on your editorial choices. You don’t understand how WordPress works, you don’t understand how to curtail vulgarity throughout your comment sections and you don’t understand your own internet policy. You can claim, “but I didn’t know his name” but you knew when you called the school that providing the time of transmission could lead their IT department to the specific computer and user (thus outing the person). Therefore, you KNEW your actions would cause an adverse action onto the poster. And if you didn’t know all this…THEN YOU’RE NOT QUALIFIED TO DO YOUR JOB!
Kurt, it doesn't matter how you feel or think. The fact is you violated your own newspaper's privacy policy. have you read it? It clearly states, as most do: “We will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information.”
You shared information about a user only your paper had with a third party and cost the person their job. All you had to do as an editor is delete the comment, but you allowed your emotions to guide your decisions instead of clear policy. And if you are actually a “Social Media Director,” why is it you do not have the word that offended you so greatly on your WordPress “banned word” list?
You've been in journalism since the 80s, but this technology must be brand new to you because what you've done is so juvenile and unprofessional by most respected blogger standards, not to mention your own explicit policy.
This guy should never have posted that comment. He should have also realized that what you post on the internet is not exactly private. The guy is an idiot. But he should not have assumed, according to your own Terms Of Service, that he would have a retaliatory effort made against him. It appears no where in your Terms that you would contact an employer but only a a proper public official which wasn't the case here.
Mr. Greenbaum, you call this guy a “jackass” in one of your tweets that's posted to this page. I'm not sure how that vulgarity is at all different from what the user posted. Could you explain that?
I also find it hard to believe that you are doing nothing different than trying to have your comments seen in a better light. It's pretty obvious that you had a gloating if not gleeful tone directed at this “jackass.” The IT administrator “took a shine to the challenge”? Sounds like a fun little game. That you now say you “should take pains to measure my language carefully” tells me that there is a separation between what you really think (the gloating) versus what you want to convey to others. That's quite a bit different than saying that you weren't gloating in the first place.
To your point about not giving out private information about this person. Imagine this scenario: Someone calls into a radio station call-in show and says a vulgarity. The DJ notice that the Caller ID is from a local school. The DJ calls the main school number, gives the specific telephone number (which is traceable to only one phone) and the time of the call to an administrator. Mr. Greenbaum, you may not have given out someone's name but it's hard to argue that you didn't given out “private” information (as you argue). At least you certainly gave out identifiable information. And, really, is there a difference?
Also, it appears that a large motivation for your actions was to teach a lesson, a “teachable moment” to this person, because they were at a school. How do you decide what kind of person should be taught a lesson or not. How is that your job? Should it just be those that work with children? Since when did you get to become the final arbiter of what is decent in what context? What if it had come from a library; what about a church; what about a local government office; what about a private home that also runs an afterschool daycare? I'm not sure that's a decision you want a journalist making independent of anyone else. You make decisions about your moderating your own comments but it's entirely different to carry that moderation back into someone's job.
You say one of the lessons you've learned is that you “Should have walked the idea around the newsroom a little more before calling the school.” Would others have advised that you do something different? You say we'll never know because you “couldn't know without asking.” Well, that begs the question: what are they saying now? Surely, you could ask others in the newsroom what they would have done. And should be. Perhaps you should share that as part of your comments.
You strike a slightly more conciliatory tone now but you were aggressive and defensive for the first several days after you posted this. It seems you are only changing now because you realize you “were utterly surprised by the reaction” and not because you actually feel different about what you've done. That's pretty self-serving.
What's done is done but Mr. Greenbaum your issues seems much more to do with process than outcome. At several points you have shown that you ignored normal procedures, didn't solicit the advice of others, and were truculent about your decisions in the face of overwhelming reader critiques. It seems like in this instance, it's not about what the man did but what you did and didn't do in return.
For other commenting: there's no need to generalize this beyond Mr. Greenbaum when it comes to media or trust of journalists. What you've done, Mr. Greenbaum, is so far from what almost any other jounalist would have done that you are nothing but an outlier, not worthy of generalization. You're a cautionary tale.
By email feed, I have received several Comments that are not appearing here. Is the blog owner deleting these? Hopefully, it's a time lag and they will eventually appear. One of interest was from Paul N. A segment of his comment was:
“For other commenting: there's no need to generalize this beyond Mr. Greenbaum when it comes to media or trust of journalists. What you've done, Mr. Greenbaum, is so far from what almost any other jounalist would have done that you are nothing but an outlier, not worthy of generalization. You're a cautionary tale.”
That may be so, but where does that put the Post-Dispatch? Should they continue to employ Mr. Greenbaum if in fact he has violated their policies? Or does he get a second chance? The school teacher certainly didn't have that option.
Read your own privacy policy: “We will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information”
If everyone hasn't realized yet, the Internet is full of trolls who will say horrible things wherever they find the ability to make a comment.
Trolls don't represent the silent majority.
Violate the spirit of the Internet, however, and that silent majority will show you a backlash of epic proportion.
Trolls aren't going to stop trolling. You knock one down, another will pop up. Guaranteed.
Greenbaum, being a “director of social media” should have known this. There are a few simple ways of eliminating trolls. Turn off comments altogether (unlikely), or moderate, moderate, moderate.
Making a call to punish a troll might provide some short term gratification, but in this public world of the Internet, breaking the social contract of Internet conversations (policies be damned) will only get you bitten.
Maintaining trust extends beyond your interpretation of the newspaper's privacy policy. It was clearly violated–it is for the public to decide, and we clearly have decided–and it clearly cannot be reestablished with your bizarre defense of your actions. People have the right to be vulgar in this country. Privately typing a vulgar word on a computer located in the confines of a school is in no way a crime, and you have absolutely no business accessing IP addresses because of two (2) inappropriate and readily editable remarks. That you *can* track the man down and punish him for being immature does not relieve you of your moral obligation to not be such a complete fascist. Completely appalling behavior on your part and completely appalling that the newspaper is taking such a light stance on one of their employees using newspaper resources to punish a man who used the newspaper as a public forum for speech, however unwelcome. If I ever had anything to do with the paper, I certainly wouldn't now. Lord willing, it will be out of business sooner than the rest.
More than once you have stated:
“Did I reveal private information? No…. The school knows its own IP address.”
Quite simply, you are being dishonest. Perhaps your motivation is just to be defensive against the full frontal attack from your readers.
In order for your statement to make any sense at all, your phone call would have to have gone as follows:
“Is this xxyyzz school?”
“Yes it is.”
“I just wanted to tell you that your IP address is xx.xy.zyx”
“Oh, thank you, but we already know this. Is there anything else you have to tell us?”
“Of course not. I would never divulge any private information from anyone posting anything to our newspaper, especially when they have an expectation of anonymity. For example, it would be extremely unethical for me to tell you that at exactly 3:47:03pm someone from your school put a supposedly anonymous post on this paper's site that I found offensive.”
“Yes it would. Did you say 3:47:03pm?”
“Yes”
“Well, there's only one person here who was using a computer at that time, but of course you never really gave me any information that would let me identify that person or what he or she posted at your site, did you?”
“No….of course I didn't. All I told you was your IP address, which you already knew anyway!”
Kurt sez about reveling private information >
“No. I had none to reveal and wouldn’t have if I had it. From me, the school learned three things: …<indirectly exactly who the guy was>”
But, you make excuses. What you first said was:
Kurt first said>
“I’m not identifying the guy who posted the comment because, obviously, I don’t know who it was.”
The obvious implication was that the only reason you didn't out and out expose his identity was because you (thankfully) didn't find it out. NOT that you'd never do that.
The thing is, you broke the ToS (as many others have said). And again the phrase “jackass”. Why? Why the double standards? You can say something “vulgar” yet another person can not?
My guess is you just opened up the paper to a lawsuit due to the violation of the posted privacy policy. That's what happens when someone that knows very little about social media gets a job as a director of social media. If you don't want anonymous posters then disable it – if you want to institute some conservative speech constraints then add it to the T&C's and if you want to be able to track down and report people for what they post then include it in your privacy policy
You haven't learned that you made a mistake and should apologize.
The headers, with enough date and time information to identify the person to his employer, is personal information.
You violated the ST's privacy policy and cost somebody his job.
Kurt sez about reveling private information >
“No. I had none to reveal and wouldn’t have if I had it. From me, the school learned three things: …<indirectly exactly who the guy was>”
But, you make excuses. What you first said was:
Kurt first said>
“I’m not identifying the guy who posted the comment because, obviously, I don’t know who it was.”
The obvious implication was that the only reason you didn't out and out expose his identity was because you (thankfully) didn't find it out. NOT that you'd never do that.
The thing is, you broke the ToS (as many others have said). And again the phrase “jackass”. Why? Why the double standards? You can say something “vulgar” yet another person can not?
My guess is you just opened up the paper to a lawsuit due to the violation of the posted privacy policy. That's what happens when someone that knows very little about social media gets a job as a director of social media. If you don't want anonymous posters then disable it – if you want to institute some conservative speech constraints then add it to the T&C's and if you want to be able to track down and report people for what they post then include it in your privacy policy
You haven't learned that you made a mistake and should apologize.
The headers, with enough date and time information to identify the person to his employer, is personal information.
You violated the ST's privacy policy and cost somebody his job.
[...] latest in ignorant rage on the internet: Some idiot resigned from their job after being confronted about a vulgar comment they made twice on a news site that didn’t conform to their employer’s policies but [...]
[...] Follow up: The vulgar comment & the school [...]