Lewis - I take some measure of satisfaction in knowing that when someone resorts to *unsubstantiated* personal attacks, they have no interest in being reasonable. As I've heard you say so many times, it says more about them than it does about the target of their invective.

But you're right. It does nothing to further the discussion (and can in fact stop one in its tracks). Because of that, blog owners dedicated to serving their audience not only have the right, but the responsibility to put an end to abusive comments, one way or the other (unless the goal is to demonstrate the character of the person making the attacks).

That said, we all make mistakes, too, and say things we later regret. I normally advise quick forgiveness when asked, and especially in simple misunderstandings.

This is a big reason why I no longer read advertising blogs, cause many of them go for sensational content, and gossip. And I'm sure the anonymous comments are the most vicious, so they draw more comments. I did love the comment in the NYTimes article from AgencySpy saying that they didn't have time to monitor all the comments to check the content of anonymous commenters. Of course they can set it up to not allow anonymous comments, but my guess is those anonymous commenters are also the most violatile, so they probably want to keep those.

Cam,

I love your statement about forgiveness. Those who once attacked me over an issue in response to my over-blown take on it have forgiven me and I forgave them. We now read each other's blogs.

Mac,

You and I both know that the more sensational and adversarial the post and the comments, the more readers are attracted to those posts. But do we want to attract those kinds of readers? Not you, not Cam and not most of the bloggers I know.

As someone who is closer to this than most of you, (I'm an advertising creative director) I've been puzzling this over the past few weeks.

Some random thoughts:

This is being blown way out of proportion. The "attacks" on Tilley were fairly mild (for the ad blogosphere) and seemed to mostly mock an agencywide memo he'd sent out. They got really nasty after he was dead, and it saddened me to think that I work in the same industry as people who'd be that low.

On the other hand, suicide is far more complex than a senior executive reacting badly to a few tweaks on blogs and for people to suggest otherwise is somewhat absurd. It made good copy though although it did avoid another more valid point: all too often the people called out via anonymous comments aren't industry leaders-- they're small fish, cogs in the wheel, and the comments can affect their careers or at least their digital reputations.

The attacks on these blogs are often personal in nature. "John Doe is a fat, ugly talentless hack" as opposed to "I think John Doe is an idiot for expressing this opinion." Big difference.

Some of the people who are blowing this out of proportion seem to have their own reasons for getting their own names out there, making the whole thing doubly skeevy.

Ad bloggers- and commenters- tend not to use their own names since they work for companies who'd fire them for expressing any sort of opinion, no matter how mild. (Or that's the fear, anyway.) It's rare to find anyone on those sites using their own names and when you do, you often wonder if it's actually their real name or a yet another pseudonym-- there's really no way to know for sure. But even on my site, which is all fairly non-controversial thought leadership stuff,
people tend to use pseudonyms.

The level of nastiness that seems to easily materialize on ad blogs is why I've made a very conscious effort to emphasize the positive on mine and/or not call anyone or any agency out by name. And though I've never had to delete a comment containing a personal attack on someone else, I'd have no hesitation doing so.

A sense of humor helps in combatting some of the more ridiculous comments: http://www.adpulp.com/archives/2008/03/sticks_and_ston_1.php

A surplus of negative comments on anything is usually a sign that something is wrong. Or that a handful of disgruntleds need to get on with their lives.

The only good that might come of this is that people might pause before anonymously slamming someone who is not a big player. "Might" being the operative word here.

Toad,

I greatly appreciate your insider's POV. And I totally agree that suicide is far too complex to attribute a single cause.

As you know, since we briefly shared our ideas last year regarding pseudoymns, I hear what you are saying, but it troubles me that your industry is so close-minded that they refuse to acknowledge that advertising people have opinions and should be encouraged to express them. Instead, by suppressing voices, we end up with discourse that demeans the entire advertising industry because anonymity encourages some to be outrageous, rude and loud.

Lewis - Personally I don't mind controversy. If what I write never makes anyone a little uncomfortable, I'm not doing my job.

I do so, not for its own sake, but because I know iron sharpens iron, and thoughtful discussion benefits everyone.

It is never personal, though. I agree with Toad that there's a big difference between "You're an idiot because of these reasons..." (though I would express it differently, and in reference to the ideas more than the person) and "You're a fat, ugly, talentless hack."

Cam,

Controvery is good for both writer and readers. We can learn much from disagreement. But when it degenerates into personal and mean-spirited attacks, that is just wrong.

@Cam and Lewis: Agreed. But one more differentiator is when the vitriol is aimed at a third party who is not even aware that they are part of the conversation, e.g. if someone were to use this thread to rip-- not on Lewis or Cam or me, but on some other ad blogger they didn't happen to like.

That Paul Williams guy from Idea Sandbox (idea-sandbox.com) is a schmuck.

Toad,
Excellent post!

Ann,
LOL I hope.

"Ann Nonimus"... wish I thought of that! lol...

Ann,

Paul is a pretty creative guy. Do you think he was trying to make you appear responsible or may Paul thinks he really is a schmuck.

Lewis,

Outside the online world, we would call this behavior exactly what it is: bullying.

It needs to be called out and it needs to stop. Free speech, good senses of humor (Toad?), and other issues have nothing to do with it. This is about human behavior and common decency. After all, it's all too easy to just type words on a screen and figure that they will be harmless since they are just words on a screen. But words hurt. They inspire, too, but they can also hurt.

"I believed in the healing power of words..."
- Eugene Fitzpatrick, "Until the End of the World"

@Michael: There's bullying and there's calling people out for bad corporate behavior.

The biggest issue- and there's no real answer- is when does someone become a "public figure" and thus it's okay to criticize them.

Would you say that blog (and actual newspaper and magazine) comments that mocked Howard Schultz (CEO of Starbucks) for his memo about improving the stores were bullying? Or were they valid criticism of a public figure?

What if the memo came from the head of marketing at Starbucks?

What if it was the East Coast Regional Manager?

The manager of the Beverly Hills store?

See, it's not that black and white.

That's why the courts themselves often have a tough time drawing the line between slander and free speech.

Sorry... I didn't even think my moniker would incriminate the Daily Fix Ann!