Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Bateman is currently stationed in Washington, D.C. He was a Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and has authored two books: "Digital War, A View from the Front Lines" (Presidio: 1999) and "No Gun Ri, A Military History of the Korean War Incident" (Stackpole, 2002). These opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the U.S. Government or the Armed Forces.

A few weeks ago I wrote an Op-Ed for the Chicago Tribune about an experience I had with a Blackwater convoy on the streets of Baghdad during my own tour of duty there in 2005-2006.  The essay was straightforward, clean, and expressed my personal observations and personal opinions about a private corporation based upon those same observations.  In general, although in a fairly outspoken way, my comments were in line with what the Secretary of Defense said in a press conference just one week later.  In essence that was that at least some contractors act in ways that are at cross-purposes to our efforts in Iraq.

During the week between when I made my personal opinion known, and when the SecDef said much the same thing, I had the pleasure of watching how others received my words.  These were not, it turns out, just Chicagoans.  No, what showed up was a cross-section of people not only from across the country but from even across continents.  Like many major papers the Tribune posts most of their content online.  Also, again as with many papers, they allow for generally uncensored feedback from their readers.  Thus began a wild ride.

Now before we address some of the comments I should fill in some details.  After all, as a historian I am all about context.  So for starters, even if you have not read the Op-Ed, you know from my bio above that I am a professional Army officer.  I am more or less your typical Airborne Infantry Ranger, albeit one with an inclination to write.  Aside from my books, my clip files include Op-Eds, freelance magazine stuff, online essays, the works.  Finally, some may infer that as a member of both of the two professions/crafts (the military and the media) which renounce public political affiliations among their members, I personally have no politics.

“These media guys like Bateman are low life conscienceless liberals that are paid by no other than George Soros and the Clintons for their besmirching job of our US troops and blackberry agents that sacrifice their lives for our security.”

                                “Which proves your outrages behavior of typical Islamic terrorist that may have been ‘your friends’ in your vehicle.”

                                “I would posit that you weren't on a mission at all, but merely taking a taxi ride...It is a warzone, waaaaaaaaah, suck it up you weak little man. Enough already with slagging BW.”

“You proved ‘black on white’ that you are nothing less than America hater that belong to one of the left wing liberal un-American groups that are financed by George Soros that paid for your trip to Baghdad and supported you during one year aiming at failing our US troops and award the Islamic terrorist suicide bombers of Osama Bin Laden and Ahmadinajad victory in Iraq which is disgraceful...to say the least...”

                                “The liberal hordes led by Bateman are used as a tool by the Clintons’‘Media Matters’ and George Soros MoveOn to spew lies from ‘liberals that worked in Iraq and supposed to know’ what they are saying’ which wrong.”

Now I am no shrinking violet myself so I opened up on these fellows.  But I limited my responses to one point…they were writing anonymously and I was not.  Therefore, until they gave their real names there was no way I was going to engage with them.  It was my own small dig for civility.

But the exchanges did make me think about the nature of civil discourse in the Age of the Internet and the role that newspapers are developing.  Generally speaking, newspapers generate the vast majority of new information which becomes the fodder for discussions around water coolers and coffee pots, let alone internet discussion groups.  Bloggers comment upon and expand the original reporting, but few generate real news.  At the same time we have all now witnessed the degradation of discussions online, the worst cases of which become known as “flame wars.”  Which leads us to the point of the column this week: Newspapers must discourage anonymity.

A few weeks ago I railed against the use of anonymous sources by journalists.  I made that point on the basis of the need for journalism to strive to increase their reputations as the purveyors of the Truth.  But what we are seeing on the discussion boards of newspapers is another variation on the same theme.  People who can post anonymously are more inclined to initiate ad hominem attacks, make outrageous claims, and generally destroy the civil interaction upon which the nation depends. 

In providing the venue for virtual water-cooler discussions, which then devolve into flame wars, are newspapers doing their readers (and their reputations) a disservice?  I would suggest that this is so.  Moreover, it is very easy to correct. 

One obvious, albeit prohibitively expensive route would be to hire monitors who would constantly oversee the discussion boards, seeking out and deleting messages which sink into ad hominem or ludicrous.  But we all know that is not likely as it means hiring.  More viable might be modifications to their software so that only “users” who have “registered” (leaving a verifiable e-mail address, as well as a real name) by some means with the paper, and whose real name appears appended to their postings, may leave messages on that newspaper’s message boards.  Anonymity, as many can attest, leads to abuse.  Now is the time to start wrestling with the issue of how to rein that in across the board.

Oh, and if anyone knows George Soros, please send him my address.  Apparently he owes me some paychecks.

You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com.

[top]