A regularly utilized, easy-to-use commenting system is a good start in a news outlet’s quest to become transparent and effective.
It allows readers to express views that often counter those of the writers, share their own experiences and question how news coverage is constructed. In a system of free press, the best practice is free commentary and criticism. But in light of a controversy over a recent comment regarding a Harvard Crimson article, that idea needs some clarification.
You’ll notice that on most media websites, there is a commenting policy that warns users to show civility to those with different opinions. In the Daily Bruin’s commenting policy, it’s seen as the golden rule: “Address others the way you want to be addressed.”
When Peera Hemarajata’s Facebook comment in response to a Harvard Crimson opinion article made its social media rounds earlier this week, I couldn’t help but think of that golden rule. The comment, hurtful and threatening, made the column itself no longer the focal point.
Hemarajata is a microbiologist at UCLA who was very scientifically technical in his violent threat against The Crimson’s staff columnist, who wrote on the state of Harvard University’s Thai Studies program. I don’t know whether he meant his threat of bodily harm, and it doesn’t appear we ever will, as Hemarajata disabled a large portion of his social media presence just hours after making the comment in question.
That single comment shouldn’t dominate the discussion, but it has. The conversation no longer centered on Harvard’s financial ties to a Thai monarchy that has suppressed criticism and in many cases hurt academic freedom, but rather on something altogether less impactful than what was intended – one lousy Facebook comment.
The questions surrounding the comment did and still do need answering, but it’s unfortunate that the initial dialogue on the financial relationship between the Thai monarchy and Harvard was overshadowed. That’s why I’m glad The Crimson’s management announced the columnist, Ilya Garger, is safe and the article is back up and open for civil discussion. Now we can hopefully move on to something that is altogether more productive.
Articles and columns are not written with the intention of every reader agreeing with them. Not only is that nearly impossible to accomplish, but doing so would also require journalists to shy away from some important questions. What matters is that our abilities to question, to speak and to expose are all intact.
Meeting that with hatred and threats of bodily harm is as weak as it is pointless. As we’ve seen, it selfishly makes that discussion about one person as opposed to something bigger than ourselves.