MARIANNE Taylor's warning that "those who relish the thought of newspapers disappearing from the shelves should be careful what they wish for" ("Newspapers play a vital role in championing democracy", The Herald, November 19) is a timely reminder about the adverse effect that social media is having on public debate.
When I sent my first letter to The Herald criticising Nationalists for their Daily Mail-style attacks on Jeremy Corbyn my friend Bobby told me they wouldn't print it "because The Herald supported the SNP". My reply was: "Even if they do, they must still believe in democratic debate" (though, to be honest, I didn't think you would). To the surprise of both of us my letter was published and since then I've had several published, even though many of my letters attack the paper's editorial policy.
Personally I find debating in dead trees quite civilised as it allows the contributors to marshal their arguments without worrying about the sensibilities of others and there is a referee – in the person of the Letters Editor – to ensure that the debate is conducted without malice. Certainly there is a democratic deficit when a Letters Editor can decide which opinions are published and which aren't but I think that is a price worth paying to banish trolls to the shadows of the internet where they belong.
Another advantage of your Letters Pages is that the contributors provide their names and addresses and don't hide behind the anonymity provided by social media. If people aren't willing to take responsibility for opinions then there is no reason why anyone else should have to read them. Internet debate gives me the creeps because you never know who you are talking to and it can often feel like a collective sick bucket for maladjusted people to puke up bigoted and disturbing vomit. That said, I disagree with Ms Taylor when she says that "no publication is solely about its editorial stance". Ideology makes pure democratic debate impossible, as we are all predisposed to read views that we sympathise with, or with those which are – at the very least – ideologically neutral.
Sean Pigott,
Flat 2/L, 13 Wilson Street, Largs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here