December 20, 2007
Online comments and a poor Maine family
By now, you may have read the reader comments attached to the Wednesday story about how a poor family from Augusta is struggling this winter to deal with high heating costs. Many of the reader posts on yesterday's article were critical of the family. Readers expressed little sympathy for this family's plight.
Today's follow-up article by reporter Gary Remal explored what readers wrote and had several advocates for people/families in need saying this is why it's risky going to the media with examples of people who are struggling. The subjects can be ridiculed. They can be hurt. And they're already going through a tough time.
So a question is, why do the Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel allow reader comments to be posted? On balance, we feel the value of the discourse is greater than not allowing the discourse to happen at all. On many stories, readers do not get so mean-spirited. They offer examples and different ways to look at an issue. We sometimes get good story ideas from these kinds of comments. When readers argue with one another through their comments, they do so in a generally enlightened way. If we ban comments, we lose all of this.
But on some days, we have our doubts. Employees at the Kennebec Journal newsroom Wednesday were concerned by what the readers wrote — knowing they were anonymous — about a family that is struggling, even if it can be argued that the adults in the family are partly responsible for their problems. A week before Christmas, this family was ridiculed.
Today, however, the reader comments on our follow-up story are more evenly divided. Some folks are standing by their criticisms of the family; other readers are questioning the "humaneness" of these anonymous critics. Somehow, this give-and-take seems healthier.
Occasionally, we are asked why we don't require online post-ers to give their full names, as we do letters to the editor in our newspaper. That's because there's no practical way to verify these, at least not in a way that doesn't require a lot more employees than we have. Reader posts are like incoming emails — they are hard to stop — and we get hundreds a day. If we did ask for full names, we'd probably get a lot of comments from "John Baldacci" and the governor wouldn't be the guy who wrote them, I'm pretty sure. We might get a lot from "Eric Conrad" too.
So for now, we are continuing to allow reader posts. though we do screen comments and we take down comments with profanity, hate speech and the like. We screened out and took down at least a half-dozen comments on Remal's story yesterday because they said things like, "Eat your dog" that we thought crossed the line. We don't screen comments just because we disagree or we don't like them, however. And that line can be hard to draw. Yesterday's article was a case in point.
I have to say this: The personal, critical nature of many of the comments yesterday, during the holiday season in a supposedly "friendly and tolerant" place like Maine, was a concern. We are (again) talking about our approach to online comments in light of this.
The questions remains; why do you have one policy for letters to the editor and one for online comments?
You certainly would not have published on the letters to the editor page 100s of bullying letters?
"Eat your dog" ?? would this have appeared in the letter to the editor section?
Time for the editorial board to take some responsibility for allowing this senseless bullying to take pleace (and for allowing it to continue).
Posted by
P. HaywardDecember 20, 2007 01:33 PM
I think most people are not opposed to helping out those in need, but what about the rest of us? I work two jobs, nobody gives me assistance on paying for food or oil (which I just paid 3.49 per gallon for). I've had hard times too. But it's too much to think that I am paying taxes to help support guys like him.
The worst of it is that the KJ does not want to print the real reason people are frustrated, they just want to ask where the Christmas spirit is...I think mine went to the oil bill.
Posted by
sickofitDecember 21, 2007 12:47 PM
Your article indicated that people critical of this family are afraid to post their real names. Not me, my name is Steve Hunnewell. My beef, if I am to believe what I read in the KJ, is that these folks can afford (or have paid by the State) a lawyer to tell them not to do volunteer work in order to avoid losing a chance at disability payments, they can afford to pay for dog food and Christmas lights, and the husband can somehow manage to remain unemployed for 18 months. If my family was in danger of starving or freezing, I'd be working 3 jobs, heating only one room in my house, and my dog (who I love dearly) would be given away to a loving home so that I could feed and clothe my kids. I have given hundreds of dollars to struggling families, but I do that only when they demonstrate a willingness to do everything in their power to help themselves first. People in this State are sick and tired of standing in line at K Mart and watching people buy non-necessities with welfare money. Shame on the KJ and the Salvation Army for trying to make anyone critical of this family seem like a Christmas Scrooge!
Posted by
steve hunnewellDecember 21, 2007 03:57 PM
You profiled a family that was in a self inflicted hardship. What did you expect?
Posted by
angieDecember 22, 2007 09:09 AM
To be critical of someone is one thins; to be derogatory and demeaning is another. We should not judge others, but try to correct the system through legal means. Vote for those who will accomplish the job.
Posted by
Wayne LeachDecember 22, 2007 11:00 PM
Many of the comments made about the family were mean and unnecessary. As a kid who spent most of his years in Maine's foster care system, I am glad the KJ left most of the comments. People think Maine is this idyllic place with really sweet people but my experience growing up there - reinforced by the online comments - is that too many of the people of Maine have a real mean streak in them.
I disagree with most of the comments. As a foster kid, I lived with people who had illnesses; illnesses that could not simply be brushed away with a mean comment. Diabetes is not a "self inflicted hardship."
As to the advice of the lawyer, so what? I've worked on SSI, SSDI and disability cases. Seems to me the lawyer provided the correct advice. The family needs to follow certain requirements. And, as the lady said, if she could work 30 hours in a volunteer capacity, why wouldn't (or shouldn't) she work in a paid position. 30 hours is not all that far from full-time.
People being frustrated at their own situation is no reason to slam others for theirs.
Knocking down the disadvantaged is no way to build yourself up. I know that from personal experience. I was made fun of in high school all the time. Their expectations of me were pretty low. But I worked to improve my situation. They just continued to make fun of those less fortunate. Some of them fell on hard times, often because they were to busy trying to step over others.
I do not spend my time knocking the disadvantage. I lend a hand whenever I can. My good fortune, I believe, is very much a result of the kindness I show to others. Perhaps that is why some of the whiners are having difficulties: not enough kindness shown to those less fortunate than them.
This topic really gets my goat.
Keep publishing those online comments on this site. Mainers need to see themselves for what they often are (tending towards jealous of those who make it and mean towards those less fortunate). The KJ's policy is just fine and not all that different from what I've experienced on the maonline or pennlive websites.
Posted by
hermann munsterDecember 23, 2007 10:48 PM
As I didn't read the article to which this blog refers I cannot comment on that. However Hermann you should understand that it is people in general that are jealous and have mean streaks. It has nothing to do with the state as a whole. Perhaps you should put your prejudices aside during the holiday season and help the family out that you're so astutely defending.
Posted by
JAYMIEDecember 24, 2007 11:04 AM
Jamie, you skimmed over herman's posting.
He did not say that Maine is responsible for people having what you yourself call to as "jealous and mean streaks."
Herman simply commented that "too many of the people of Maine have a real mean streak in them."
States do not create mean people. Each person is responsible for whether he/she is loving or mean.
Herman just said their are too many of these people here -- you might consider reading some of the filth posted about this family, including the one who suggested they "eat their dog."
Posted by
P HaywardDecember 24, 2007 12:59 PM
hermann, I wasn't meaning her diabetes was self inflicted, although it could be. Anyways, I also wasn't meaning that Leona needed to work either, I was meaning her worthless boyfriend. I would feel sympathy for her if she didn't have that chosen extra baggage. If he was even working parttime that would be something but he does nothing. You and I both know that he could get a job in 18 months. I wonder why they didn't get help from the city? The city years ago would help with rent, food and oil but you would have to work so many hours for city to pay for it. Don't you think her daughter could get a parttime job. How about the dog. Do you think the money it takes to maintain a dog could have been used for their oil? I do agree we could have done without some of the comments. I don't agree Maine people are mean. I believe we are very hard working, poorly paid, over taxed people. We just want to help people that are trying to help themselves. Would have been better to see a plea for oil and a job.
wayne leach- I do vote but they all lie.
Posted by
angieDecember 24, 2007 01:32 PM
You agree that "we could have done without some of the comments" but then also demand/suggest her daughter get a job and that she dump the boyfriend.
Unblessed believeable.
Posted by
Hermann MunsterDecember 25, 2007 11:34 AM
Maine people are most usually very generous, even if one can't afford much they always are willing to help thy neighbor.
I believe Maine people are just sick and tired of welfare for ALL. Welfare or assistance should be for those that need and deserve it. There are many, many jobs availble out there so the 18 month layoff is plain LAZY.
Type 2 diabetes (if that is what this lady has) is fully controllable with diet and exercise. Have you ever seen a child stuck with TYPE 1 diabetes? I have, I have a child with TYPE 1, she has no choices in life to rid this from her body, she is a lifetimer, she was struck with this illness at the age of 12 and spent most of the first 4 years after diagnosis in the hospital until a wonderful doctor found that infected tonsils were the cause of her out of control diabetes. This child will have insulin dependent diabetes for the rest of her life and is NOT disabled, she just struggled her way through high school and is now an employeed funtional adult. (Please research type 1 and type 2 diabetes if you don't understand. there is a large difference between the two) This lady can diet, exercise and can rid if not almost rid her body of this terrible illness that some (like our children with type 1 have no choice)So, from a caring Maine person, I help many people every year for many reasons, but anyone I chose to help I know are also trying to help themselves. If these people didn't want to be ridiculed in public, they should not have agreed to the interview. What were they thinking?, that we might swarm them with gifts and money, get a job, show you care about yourself and I bet the caring Maine people will also care about you.
Posted by
Joyce TillsonDecember 25, 2007 08:22 PM
I was one of those who commented on this story. I didn't think I was cruel, just to the point. I mentioned the Christmas lights, mothers apperance, boyfriend not working, and the dog (wearing a sweater no less). I didn't even realize them all wearing short sleeves, whereas in my home, i wear long johns and turtlenecks plus sweaters trying to stay warm and keep the thermometer down a bit. I am more than happy to help those who help themselves, but this family does nothing, just collect, and collect more. I see they made out pretty well from this article, they did get quite a bit of free oil, which is what they wanted. I am sure the comments meant nothing to them, they were only after handouts. This Christmas, I purchased, wrapped, and passed out 56 gifts to some families who are less fortunate than myself, but they at least try to help themselves. And I am proud of it. I feel it's about giving, not receiving. Sure, I am having a hard time making ends meet, with the price of gas and oil, and I receive no help from anyone and am not on any kind of welfare, disability, s.s, and what not. It is hard for each and every household right now but we all have to give up some things to get by.
I think if this article had been written any other time of year, it would have received the same comments. They agreed to an interview and I'm sure they laughed at all the comments while they were receiving all the help they got. This family lives off handouts, do you think any of these comments bothered them? As far as the dog, with the sweater on, is the lowest they could have gone. There was no need of that dog in the picture. Owning an animal is a luxury, keeping them healthy and happy and fed, and just who is paying for this? Exactly, us workers. I would do anything legally to remove that dog from that home and put it into a home where it can be taken care of the proper way, and not on the welfare system. But just me cannot do it alone and the state says it is discriminatory to say welfare recipients cannot have animals. So we have to continue to support that dog and don't get the rewards of owning it.
If the mother could dump the boyfriend, wear some long sleeves and cut the heat back, cut the Xmas lights, lose some poundage (this way maybe someone would hire her), have the daughter work part time, and shed the dog, she may get lots more help by showing she is trying to help herself. I'll be anxious to see another article on this family in March or April to see what has been done in this household.
Posted by
mellieDecember 26, 2007 07:46 AM
P Hayward,
I did not skim what Herman wrote I read it through twice. I said exactly what you repeated to me that people in general have jealous tendencies and mean streaks. Its not that Maine people are the only ones, its people in general. Its also not "too many" Maine people because then you make it sound as if the state as a whole is filled with negative and selfish people. When in truth Maine is filled with the same kind of people every other state and every other country is filled with. Some of them are giving and some of them are not. If you would like to critique someone's reading skills you might want to read what they wrote twice before responding. As for the mean comments made about the family. While they may or may not be justified a lot of people are getting fed up with people who cannot help themselves. Which is probably what led to some of the mean comments, everyone looks at life through different glasses. I try not to read negative comments like that or respond to them because it perpetuates a cycle. When you read something mean that someone else wrote you write something mean to them and thats just as unfair as what was written in the first place.
Personally I think that everyone should keep their comments to themselves whether defending the family or criticizing it. If you believe they need help, help them or if you cannot do that at least show them some sort of support. If you believe they're asking too much or bringing unfortunate situations on themselves don't say mean spirited things just keep quiet.
Posted by
JaymieDecember 26, 2007 10:00 AM
Post a comment
Blog Index