Dialogue or Diatribe?

By Scott Libin
Poynter Online Managing Editor

Where I work, the legendary status of Eugene Patterson is perhaps second only to that of Nelson Poynter himself. Patterson won a Pulitzer Prize for his Atlanta Constitution columns on civil rights during the 1960s. He became editor of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times in 1972 and, upon Poynter's death in 1978, became chairman of the board of the Modern Media Institute, now known as The Poynter Institute.

A more-revered figure around here would be hard to name. So, when someone said on this site last week that Patterson should have been shot for those civil rights columns, well, those would be fightin' words -- if we at the Institute weren't such a collegial group.

The comment came from Bill White, commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, whose magazine cover for April features a swastika and the huge headline reading "Happy Birthday Hitler." White was responding to a piece by Poynter's Roy Peter Clark titled "They Shot His Dog: Historical Lessons on Incivility," which drew a parallel between the racist hate letters that appeared on op-ed pages in the South during the '60s and some of the online user comments causing concern among journalists across the country today.

Why would we allow on our site the suggestion by a white supremacist that Gene Patterson deserved to die?

In one sense, it seems to violate our own guidelines on user comments, which say, "We will remove messages that contain ... personal attacks, insults or threats."

On the other hand, in context, the comment could constitute an attempt at humor: "Its [sic] a shame they shot his dog -- they should have shot him instead. I can't see what the dog had to do with it," White wrote.

He went on to offer his perspective on the broader issue that was at the very heart of Clark's column and the coverage that accompanied it -- the conflict between the values of civil discourse and of freely expressed opinion on significant issues:

"You can censor anything you like but you guys don't own or control the media any more -- and what you do or don't do in your increasingly irrelevant publications really just doesn't matter," White wrote.

That sentiment is probably shared by many people who would like to think they have nothing in common with the politics of people like White. The same could be said for his closing comment:

"So continue the self-absorbed debate from the position of your own 'importance' while that very importance -- and you [sic] ability to act as gate keeper of public opinion -- fades away."

White's comments also offer insight into the tactics of the group he represents -- insight that may be troubling, but that has clear relevance to those who report on issues that are important, emotional and divisive:

"Now, we don't just protest at the newspaper -- we go to the writer's homes and protest there," White says.

It didn't make my day to encounter such a subtly menacing message aimed at journalists on our site. But the mission of Poynter Online is not to protect journalists from unpleasant truths or unpopular political positions. It is to inform and help journalists do their jobs.

Sometimes that means encountering comments that offend.

What do you think?