To the point: marginal
For underappreciated teachers and closet cops, for moralists, converts, and troublemakers—or, more generally, for people who suffer from logorrhea (commonly known as “verbose rambling”)—online media sites are paradise on earth. There, they can let loose.
I'm deliberately referring to the news pages here and leaving all the other opportunities that the Internet offers us for verbal self-expression on the side. So it's not about twittering or likes. It's only about the comments on online articles.
There are different laws. But the basis is always a kind of Pavlovian reflex. It is not the bell that makes the dogs drool, but the stimulus word that forces the reader to write. A few stimulus words are enough and the comments arrive in masses.
These irritant words vary depending on the topic and/or medium. Sometimes the buzzword is speeding, sometimes asylum seeker. Sometimes welfare recipient or banker. Sometimes Blocher, Somm or Köppel. Sometimes public transport or off-roaders. Sometimes FCB, YB etc. Sometimes SVP, Greens or AUNS.
The interesting thing about the comments is that after an estimated ten statements that are more or less directly about the topic, things turn around. Now it is no longer about the topic, but only about individual comments. Tally-ho, the hunt is on. All against all is the name of the game. Everyone corrects everyone, everyone insults everyone - if the moderator allows it - and after the 150th comment no one knows what it's all about anyway. The main thing is that one has contributed to the discussion. In the past, there were also letters to the editor, but that was cumbersome, time-consuming and it cost money. You had to clamp the paper (in the old days), take the paper out of the printer, look for an envelope, find and affix a stamp, and go to the mailbox. All these obstacles are gone today. Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm not against reader comments, not at all. I would only find it better in the sense of the thing if they were more well-founded or - a quite daring suggestion - were more strongly selected. In a sense, a kind of qualitative censorship that already existed in the past purely for reasons of space. But if you now think that things are better on media-related sites, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. There, too, there are irritant words or author names that have the same effect on the specialist audience. Maybe in a weakened form, but still. A pity, actually.
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief [email protected]
