Why are people so angry?
While I generally avoid them, I occasionally indulge myself. It happens when my good sense succumbs to a curiosity that simply refuses to learn from past mistakes.

"Them" are the comments readers send in response to stories on various websites, particularly sites connected with newspapers. To those of us merely passing through, the commenting readers are anonymous, hiding behind silly passwords such as rambotambo, bamaslama, ratherripped, outahere and yallsuck. (Those enrolled on the websites often discover the identities of the people using the passwords. Lucky them.)

Never am I more annoyed with newspapers than when I read comments attached to stories on their websites. Whoever is supposed to monitor these websites clearly is asleep at the switch. Now I know what Beetle Bailey is doing in civilian life.

I say this as a person who was a reporter and editor for more than 40 years at three newspapers – the late Syracuse Herald-Journal, the Akron Beacon Journal and the Providence Journal. Most of those 40 years were spent in Providence where I was the one asleep at the switch when the Internet Age arrived. I completely failed to anticipate how websites would change journalism.

SINCE THEN I've played catch up. I even have this website, which is one reason, despite all the gloom and doom predictions about newspapers, I find the times exciting. I believe creative and bold journalists could do wonders with newspapers via their websites. But as yet I see little movement in this direction.

First off, newspaper have to stop giving it away. Yes, I realize this would run counter to the freebie-jeebie internet culture, but I believe it is more important than ever for cities to have thorough and reliable sources of local news. That will never come from television because local TV channels have poor track records when it comes to covering things that don't crash, bleed or give press conferences. I also believe local TV stations are in a deeper crisis than newspapers.

So I still look to a strong local newspaper, one that not only could survive, but thrive through its website. The newspaper could provide bonus features – full access to archives, for example – that would make the website well worth a subscription fee.

Instead newspapers gamble that easy website access is the key to survival. Thus we have the electronic honor box . . . without any honor. That gets us back to the platforms these websites provide for rambotambo, bamaslama, ratherripped and other folks who have too much time on their hands. (Some newspapers, like our Bluffton, SC, tabloid, even print these anonymous comments. Why? I guess it's an easy way to fill space.)

WHAT PUZZLES ME is the anger expressed in a lot of the online comments. Besides frustration, an obvious culprit, much of the anger seems rooted in ignorance or intolerance. And much of the ignorance may come from a willingness to believe hearsay and unsourced stories that flood the internet, which used to be called the Information Highway until it so obviously became the Propaganda Turnpike. Much of what is out there – and on television and increasingly in newspapers – is bogus and based on unverified or self-serving statements.

(Which, of course, invites a short detour to Fox News which isn't above supporting subjective coverage of a live event with mislabeled footage of something that took place months earlier. When caught, Fox, like the bratty child it is, says it is really, really sorry and will never ever to do it again. Now back to Sara Palin . . . )

Recently ABC-TV presented a story from Fulton, NY, a small city northwest of Syracuse and a primary target for those heavy snowstorms that come off Lake Ontario several times each winter.

I didn't see the newscast. I'm assuming the reporter talked to residents about how they handle the snow. The only reason I know about it is through a story that appeared on syracuse.com, my favorite newspaper website because I grew up in the Syracuse area and have always considered it my real home. (While they maintain separate home pages, syracuse.com and the Syracuse Post-Standard are somehow connected. If you want to read today's news from The Post-Standard, you go to syracuse.com.)

Anyway, I read the story about the ABC-TV visit to Fulton, then foolishly checked the reader comments . . . only to discover no one was interestsed in the ABC report. Insead they were attacking Al Gore and his concern about global warming, a concept that admittedly seems foolish when the outside temperature is 10 degrees below zero – for six straight days.

However, given the stated subject of this piece, the comments on global warming were irrelevant. Even more so were the inevitable attacks on President Barack Obama that followed.

THERE ARE some newspaper websites – I believe the New York Times is one of them – that withhold irrelevant comments or quickly yank any that occasionally get through.

The agreement you must sign before joining syracuse.com indicates inappropriate comments are not allowed, but you can't prove it by perusing the website. I expect all websites go through similar motions, then pretty much let readers fend for themselves. Occasionally I'll come across a complaint from a reader who says his or her comment was not used or was pulled from the site and I have to wonder how bad the comment could have been.

All I know is it is fairly common to find something that reads like it came from an old bit on "Saturday Night Live," you know the one that poked fun at an early "60 Minutes" segment that featured short debates between liberal Shana Alexander and conservative James J. Kilpatrick. In the "SNL" skits, Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd went at each other at the end of "Weekend Update." The line that frequently comes to mind when I read website comments is one made famous by Aykroyd: "Jane, you ignorant slut."

SO IT GOES online where some folks would rather hurl insults than contribute anything meaningful to the subject at hand. Fortunately, most of these folks take up little space. "Hey, bamaslama, you're an idiot" just about covers it, though sometimes they'll add, "and I bet you voted for Obama." Others will say something similar, substituting "moron" for "idiot." These comments shouldn't make it as far as a website, but I think most of them do. Heaven help a person whose password ends with a number, such as rocket85, because this is sure to draw a reply that begins, "Hey, rocket, is 85 your age or your IQ?"

What also gets through to these websites is a lot of apocryphal drivel you might expect from small children. Admittedly, I ask for it . . .because I read a lot of sports stories that are based on little more than speculation. It logically follows that speculation breeds more speculation.

For example, there may be a rumor that Coach Tommy Tupperware will break his contract with Punxatawny Tech to take a job at Mingo Junction A&M.

In addition to the usual reader exchange –"Tupperware is a moron, the sooner he leaves, the better" vs. "Tupperware is the best thing that ever happened at Punxatawny; I hope he stays!" – you'll find a lot of nonsense that goes something like this: "I know for certain that Coach Tupperware is staying because my son is best friends with a boy whose uncle cuts grass for a man who lives across the street from the coach. That man says he talked to the mailman who told him Tupperware loves it here."

You get the idea.

AOL HAS BECOME has become an internet newsource. Sort of. As such, it rates somewhere between USA Today and The Star. At the risk of beating a dead horse (which may only result in generating sympathy for the woman), Sara Palin is a really big deal with AOL. So is anything connected with "American Idol" and "The View."

Anyway, I weakened one evening and checked comments on a story about the Texas Tech football fiasco, the firing of Coach Mike Leach for the way he mistreated his players, particularly Adam James, son of ESPN analyst Craig James whose complaint on behalf of his son sparked the school's investigation of Leach.

When the story broke, the impression was Leach forced an injured Adam James to be isolated in a dark shed. (Imagine "The Bridge on the River Kwai" when Japanese Col. Saito had British Col. Nicholson confined to a tiny, sun-baked corrugated iron box.)

This image isn't accurate, of course. So I was hoping someone who responded to the story might enlighten me. Instead most of the comments either defended Leach and demanded that ESPN fire Craig James or they supported the school's action because, in principle, it was the right thing to do. I never did get a clear idea of how the player was punished. Near as I can tell, Coach Leach had James flown to Gitmo . . . or to the Playboy Mansion. Or maybe James was confined to the player's lounge where he did some studying . . . or played video games.

EASY TARGETS for online ridicule are those who don't proofread comments before sending them. This leads to, "Hey, rambotambo, didn't anyone ever teach you how to spell? You must have gone to school in . . . " And they complete the sentence with the name of a local town, apparently to get a rise out of the people who live there. These asinine "corrections" should never see the light of day.

Besides, what pleasure can people derive from being so nasty? I guess there are a lot of people who enjoy pointing out problems, but have no interest in solving them. I expect some of these folks will wind up in Congress.

AS FOR THE PROBLEM that is the subject of this particular rant, I believe websites have an obligation to correct spelling before they post a comment. The snide remarks that result from careless, but inadvertent mistakes are usually insensitive and more tiresome than funny, especially since we've been playing this silly game for several years. All jokes eventually wear thin. If a website lacks the resources to carefully screen reader response, perhaps it ought to eliminate the comments, most of which are pointless anyway.

Also, I'd appreciate translations of the initials and other shortcuts that were developed many years ago for instant messages and have been expanded for texting. These cryptic initials often show up in website comments. (Sorry, I'm not interested in learning that language. Hey, I'm even stumped by those cellphone commercials that refer to a 3G experience. What the heck is 3G?)

Finally, please, don't post anything written in ALL CAPS. If I were a teacher, I'd give every ALL CAP report an automatic F and require the student to redo the assignment correctly. The same goes for folks who don't like to use the shift key in writing their internet masterpieces.

AT ONE TIME people who wrote letters to the editor were extended several courtesies. First, they were contacted to verify that they actually wrote the letter and intended it for publication. A name and address were required, though the writer could request that his or her name be withheld. Letters were edited for length and also for spelling. Editors frequently attached notes to clarify and correct inaccurate or misleading statements.

Granted, this might be more difficult today because websites don't seem to employ fact-checkers. And, ironically, knowledge of spelling is a low priority in this age of Spell Check. Unfortunately, even Spell Check isn't always reliable, especially on proper nouns.

Oh, yes, there was no guarantee a letter to the editor would be printed. Publications exercised what they considered good judgment.

Here's hoping the next newspaper website generation combines modern technology with old-fashioned journalism. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised by the result.