To the editor:

According to your Web site, letters to the editor should “be of public interest and should avoid name-calling and libelous language. The Journal-World reserves the right to edit letters, as long as viewpoints are not altered. Shorter letters are preferred and generally receive greater readership…”

The Web site further states: “Letters must bear the name, address and telephone number of the writer. Therefore, each field below must be completely filled out for your letter to be submitted and considered.” (Quoted directly from your Web site).

This has always been a good policy that promotes a healthy public dialogue. My question is: Why are the standards so much lower for the blog submittals by readers responding to news stories posted to your Web site?

Craig Weinaug,

Lawrence

Editor’s note: The Internet standards are different and have been more open to facilitate the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Part of the reason ties back to differing legal standards for print vs. online. In the newspaper, the paper itself, as publisher, can be held accountable for opinions and comments expressed by letter writers. A different set of rules governs the Internet postings, and in effect says that the Web site host is more accountable for intervening than for merely hosting and facilitating. Therefore, “hands-off” prevails.

That said, we do have standards for online comments and they are enforced. See www2.ljworld.com/site/rules/. It’s also instructive to see some of the online comments about etiquette at www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2007/oct/15/mos_etiquette/.

We do share a concern that sometimes the Web comments turn unfair, ignorant and nasty, causing distress and hurt feelings. Our online staff is seeking a solution as they craft the next generation of social tools for our Web audience. For example, there may be more categories of users, with each category having distinct privileges, in hopes of fostering more civil discourse. Unfortunately, such policies and practices always will be subject to criticism as we strive to balance full public participation with the need for personal accountability.