The weekly Daley: It’s a talk-back world

Can you imagine Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow concluding a news piece by adding the tag that he'd like to hear from everyone with an opinion — on anything? Wouldn't have to be related, although that would be preferable. Wouldn't have to make sense, although, of course that would be ideal.

"Tweet me @... " has become de rigeur for news anchors and broadcasters after every few stories they tell. Frequently, I proofread our articles on-line as well as for the print editions. Most of us do on a fairly regular basis. The threads that often follow a news story on-line are acquiring a life of their own. An article may report on a crime or a social event, fund-raising activity or government meeting.

The first post typically relates to something in the story. Maybe the writer thinks it was a well-written piece or just the opposite. Or maybe there's a fact-check or correction warranted. Or maybe the writer knows someone mentioned in the story and comments about that person, again relative to the story.

The next post takes issue with whatever the first poster said. Maybe the second poster also knows a person in the story but has a very different perspective of that person. So the second poster has to tell the readers that the first poster doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

The next poster explains that God would prefer that everyone involved read their Bible for guidance and then do the right thing. That one will include citations of chapter or verse that will "prove" the point poster No. 3 wants to make and often concludes with a dire warning of judgment consequences if the others don't "get it."

A little farther along in the post-flow, No. 1 will respond to No. 2 clarifying that, in fact, "It's you who don't know what you're talking about." And sometimes, one or the other will reflect, "I've known you since third grade. You were a doofus then, and now you're just lame, Dude. LOL."

"LOL" is required several times in a moderately long thread as is "BTW," while WTF and its less family-friendly kin STFU, not so much. Someone along the way will accurately exclaim that the thread has lost all connection to whatever the original article was about. Whereupon another will add an e-mail or Web address to a source document that is 63 characters long — the address, not the source document. Said source document will unquestionably prove that its recommender definitely knows what he or she is talking about.

About that time, someone will attempt to re-direct the thread back to the original issue. That will last through two or three subsequent posts. God and/or Jesus will generally be roped back in to the fray at this point. Alternately, the Constitution, having so far not been mentioned, will be thrust to the fore. That post likely will include another multi-dozen-character Web reference.

Pseudo-intellectuals are commonly found cheek-by-jowl in the threads with real intellectuals. Happens all the time, and everyone knows the difference. They don't agree, LOL, but they know the difference.

We try to screen out those posts that are just too darn offensive. You may have seen some of them. They can be shockingly nasty — and of course naturally "off subject." That's one of my primary complaints about this "talk-back" culture and "pingback" world. It seems to bring out the worst in some people. Lots of good, interesting, thoughtful "talk-backers" out there, and many of our regulars are just that.

I enjoy reading them. The others make me fear for humankind. LOL.

Chris Daley is a weekly columnist for the Mountain Democrat.