By Fraser P. Seitel
iggerantfool writes:
There are so many errors in this op-ed by Dr. Michael Sacks – rhymes with "quacks" – that I don’t know where to start. Sacks says he’s "diagnosed thousands of bi-polar disorder cases," but what Dr. Quacks doesn’t say is that he, himself, and the psychiatric unit he heads at Wild Medical have been the subject of at least 20 multi-million dollar class action law suits for malpractice. Sacks has also been denied tenure at two major teaching hospitals. I know. He "treated" me in 2001 to disastrous effect!! Why don’t you check your writers first, before allowing suspect psychiatrists a free forum to float their flaws?
Behold the "troll" -- an anonymous blogger who posts derogatory, inflammatory, not to mention downright "negatory" messages on newspaper web sites, often in response to op ed articles written by well-meaning, guest columnists.
The problem was highlighted in a recent New York Times op-ed by a Facebook product design manager, who called on content providers "to rein in bad behavior by promoting accountability" and "stop allowing anonymous comments."
Good luck.
The real question for public relations advisors is, "Do we blog back to set the record straight?"
The answer, like everything else in the wild, wacky world of cyberspace, is a many nuanced thing. Here are considerations before counseling a client to strike back at scurrilous, anonymous, Internet accusations.
There’s nothing more infuriating than being attacked unmercifully – and untruthfully -- by some nudnik, nestled in the blanket of anonymity. And certainly, an aggrieved author wants to fire back.
Counsel him or her to "wait."
Consider first how many people may have seen the response, how likely it is that one’s primary audience may be among them, and whether any thinking person is likely to take the attacks seriously.
Sometimes – many times, in fact, when it comes to the Net – the best response is "no response." In such cases, suggest that your client swallow hard and move on.
- Keep it brief and factual.
Occasionally, infrequently, it may make sense to strike back. This is true when the troll’s facts are wrong and cast the client and the institution in an awful light. And it’s especially true if there’s a perceived risk that the troll’s comments might go viral to a much larger audience.
When blogging back, the response should be short and contain, as Sgt. Joe Friday famously said, "nothing but the facts." A lengthy response allows the troll to cherry-pick phrases and distort further, the organization’s position.
In the example above, something along these lines might be tendered:
Dr. Sacks writes:
While we don’t ordinarily respond to anonymous and inaccurate comments, for the record: In the past 10 years, Wild Hospital Psychiatric has been the subject of no class action lawsuits. Further, I have never been denied tenure at any institution.
Never succumb to the troll’s invitation to join him down in the mud. That’s what the troll wants you to do, descend to his level.
Don’t take the bait.
You and your organization are respected authorities. As soon as you start ranting back at a crank, you lose that credibility. You become just another fat cat organization striking out at a little guy just trying to exercise his freedoms.
Keep in mind that blogs are public and that your response represents your organization’s position in the community. As inviting as it is to smash the creep for his spurious spewing – resist the temptation.
Another option, in lieu of responding to the troll in the newspaper’s blog, is to bring up the issue in one’s own in-house forum.
For example, a CEO’s or department head’s weekly email newsletter is a perfect venue to answer questions or make points that have sparked recent community conversation.
The beauty of using your own internal channel to "respond" to issues raised by Internet trolls is it allows a more contextualized and comprehensive explanation, impossible to achieve through a brief blog response. It also keeps the issue internal, reaches an important target audience, and shuts out the troll from further communication.
- Assess Fallout and Refine Feedback.
Finally, if after the dust settles -- and you’ve either ignored, responded on the blog, or raised the issue internally -- you still believe some further action is necessary in the community, proceed.
Discussing the issue in local interviews, news releases, publications, etc. is a good way to tamp down any incipient controversy.
Again, the key is to assess the possibility that a prolonged and amplified response might exacerbate the problem. If the chances are good that this might happen, then the best response might well be to "let sleeping trolls lie."
|