By ROBERT JUMPER
One Feather Editor
Some folks have some interesting takes on free speech. They will rail on someone’s opinion, then insist that the person’s opinion be removed from public view. Then, they get upset when their personal attack is removed from public view.
As we have stated over and over, the One Feather strives to be an open forum for our community and readership to share viewpoints on the variety of issues facing the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. While opinions in and of themselves are not necessarily full of truthful information, they do tend to reflect the direction the community, or a segment thereof, might be feeling on certain things.
For example, we frequently run a “question of the week”. Sometimes, we ask a question, and the community is practically silent. As was once pointed out to me, silence doesn’t necessarily mean apathy, but could mean satisfaction. People are slow to provide positive feedback, but most are quick to provide negative feedback. In reviewing our social media content, negative comments far exceed the positive. The exceptions are typically obituaries and educational/sports achievements. There, you will find almost exclusively platitudes.
I guess our lean toward the negative is a product of human nature. In many media publications, the lead stories are typically negative ones, court cases, murders, accidents, diseases. Oh, the honor rolls, charity work, and sports achievements will get coverage deep in the publication or broadcast, but the big story is “who is suing who”, “who shot who”, “who slept with who”, or “how many got killed in the disaster”. When a story like this is posted at the One Feather, say a story about an investigation of tribal embezzlement, the response is almost universally negative. Many just move from speculation as to if the act happened to what should be done to the accused. And no matter how strongly we stress that if a person is being investigated, that we all should assume innocence until the investigation is complete, many folks will openly suggest punishments for the accused.
Part of our challenge is that there seems to be most of us who have a very short attention span. Indeed, there are likely several readers who won’t get beyond the title of this commentary and assume that this piece is about taking away people’s rights to share their opinions. In fact, we have had folks do exactly that with news articles. The headline of the story will be the opposite of what the story is about, and many of the comments on the story will be about the headline and never mention the content of the story. We routinely publish announcements, public service, and advertisements, with the clear “who, what, where, when, and why” of an event. There will be at least a few comments or messages asking for information that is clearly on the notice or ad. We have even had other readers step in and explain to the person with the short attention span where to look for the information or simply repeat what is on the announcement.
Our readership is diverse and vocal. And because we know the pain that discrimination and racism cause both individuals and communities, the opinion pieces, commentaries, and letters to the editor, are accepted and considered for publication regardless of race, religious beliefs, and orientation. Who is speaking is less of a question to us. When we review opinion submissions, we look at their societal sensitivity, whether the content consists of a personal attack, and if the commentary or letter addresses a communal need or situation, and particularly comments that suggest or insist that we should take away someone else’s right to express their opinion. Our goal is to facilitate community and readership discussion. Part of that facilitation is to remove obstacles and threats to the safe environment that we are charged to maintain. Readers should not feel intimidated or devalued for their opinions on community subjects. Bullying of those expressing commentary does not benefit our community.
We recently posted a message concerning troll messages on the One Feather page. Incidents of trolling are on the rise. Post reach on the One Feather Facebook page is currently at a record level (the one month moving average post reach as of this writing is 2,470,423 and post engagement stands at 261,690). Just to be clear, social media trolling is “when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In some cases, they say things they don’t believe, just to cause drama.”
In addition, there are those who pose deceptive, misleading posts to entice responses that will ultimately enable the troller to hack into the lives of those responding. You may have heard it called “phishing”. One site calls these people attackers. “Social media phishing is used by attackers seeking to steal personal data to sell on the dark web or to gain access, typically to financial accounts. They may also troll for personal details for credential phishing purposes (cofense.com).”
It is obvious to me that the One Feather has done a good job of opening a communication venue for our community and readership because over a quarter of a million of the 2.5 million people who see the One Feather feel comfortable, safe to engage in activity at the Facebook page. We will continue to be open to comments and opinions about issues that face our tribe. We will also guard against those who would threaten that openness, who attack others for their opinions, and who attempt to shut others up through intimidation.
