You see it everywhere: on the roads, in stores, almost everywhere you go. It's become a me-first world, with courtesy and respect taking a back seat to smart-alecky, rude behavior. You can especially see it in the comments on stories on many newspaper Web sites, including www.connpost.com. Some are downright nasty, others fail in efforts to be funny. Many are just hurtful.
As an example, a story on www.connpost.com today about a woman whose car crashed into the Mill River in Fairfield contained the following comment from a reader: "Maybe she thought she was going through a car wash."
Is that helpful? I wonder if people were forced to attach their names or e-mails to their comments on stories if they'd try this? To me, it's just plain cowardice.
And Bill Cummings' story today on Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch is another example. Since the story went up early today, 22 comments have been posted, with many taking pot shots at Finch and others.
The editors here, and at newspapers around the country, are wrestling with how to deal with this new wave of public comment. In newspapers, letters to the editor, which are generally thoughtfully written, are never printed without the writer's name. Nothing anonymous. But on the Web it's nothing but anonymous. The debate here is: Do we let this go on? Certainly it helps with traffic on our Web pages, but at what cost? The consensus has been that if any comments on a story get out of hand, all of the comments will be taken down, not just the offending ones. But is that fair?
Some argue we're providing a public service, to let people vent. Others take us to task, saying we're shirking our responsibility by not deleting cruel comments.
If people can't police themselves, maybe we ought to institute rules. Or just not offer the opportunity to comment. Either way, the debate is ongoing.