These points might act as an addendum to the various links about dealing with trolls. A bit more how-to, or perhaps, how-not-to.

One, I’m surprised that it’s raised so many hackles. Trolls are intent on getting people to react, and this one has done very well out of it, no credit to those who fell for it.

Two, it’s a sad fact of life that so many of the respondents have chosen to be immature in their responses, making threats and hurling insults, sometimes well beyond the individual concerned to whole groups. Not a pretty sight. Quaker continues to get the better of people.

Three, the original insulter has either moved on to pastures new, or is now unlikely to make a more positive contribution. The latter may have always been a slim chance, but I’ll bet it’s gone to zero now. Where’s the prospect of engaging in a debate and perhaps learning a thing or two?

Four, while it is important to support one’s friends and colleagues, it’s is also important to respond to criticism constructively. For example, in the original comment, it would have been relatively easy to query any of the points or insinuations made. An incisive reading of the comment would have let the air out rapidly, and would equally quickly distinguish a crank from a critical friend. It’s disturbing to see that prominent people in Birmingham prefer to respond with threats and insults. I suppose it’s based on long and weary experience of dealing with flamers and so forth.

That said, I want to add that it’s courageous of you to put your head above the wall in the first instance, which I hope is part of your journalistic instinct to find out what’s happening and report on it. Well done in that regard, and I hope you have the moxie to keep at it.

It’s also reassuring to see so many reasoned and empathetic responses from people. They give me something to emulate.

Oh and before I get blow down…. I’m not getting at journalist here, I know that filling column inches is not an easy job, and even harder to maintain a interesting, relevant and ever changing web news site, with pressure to get stories out as quickly as possible. However perhaps this is what has to change, getting quality over speed, with professional journalists delving deeper adding the value. Or am I just naive?

Personally, I often find it useful to tap out an angry response in a document (not email, no danger of accidentally pressing send), then sleep on it, or at least give it to a 3rd party to read first. Anger out of system, the real reply can then be written constructively. Not that quacker, damn done it again, quaker is listening.

Oh, am I just allowed to take issue with “richbits” slander of the press release? Not all news is of the investigative type – some places genuinely do have “news” that’s useful or relevant to the wider world.

For sure, its pretty darn annoying to read a blatant press release story that is obviously just there for the self satisfaction of the producer, with little relevance to anyone else – but don’t tar everyone in “PR” (a hateful meaningless term) with the same brush.

I’ve been known to write a press release or two in my line of work (I reject the PR title though)….I even blog them now with links to info sources and contributors. It’s not a crime for a journalist to use a press release – so long as that’s a starting point for a good story, not a cut and paste exercise.

Sorry, wrong place for that extra comment – don’t quacker me!

The internet is just a delivery mechanism, competing directly with paper. I fear that paper newspapers will be lost in 100 years time, but we will still have journalists working in groups who know the area (Geographical or topical) that they are covering and can publish a consolidated, yet unbiased view of that area’s news. Those that just take ‘press releases’ and regurgitate them will die (thank goodness), but those who probe and get at the story will continue and grow.

I hope that you will continue to be one of the latter, presentation will improve the more and more that you do it, but your argument was well thought out and well formed.

If I disagree I am at liberty to disagree and argue my point, I can even give my opinion on how you presented and you it would seem will take that criticism, but if I dive into slander then not only should I suffer the consequences, but my argument will get lost behind that.

I very much hope that you will not think twice about taking part in debates in the future.

Thank you all for your supportive comments. They are very kind.

I haven’t given up on the idea of voicing my opinions in public – I fundementally believe that it is a key part of transparency and that is the future of journalism. I want to embrace open debate and conversation.

As I have said before, I am not afraid of criticism – I welcome it.

But I have appreciated the kind words from those who have commented on this post and elsewhere. They have been a big, big support and have helped me relegate “Quakergate” from the “shocked and upset” to the “live and learn” category. Thank you.

Your insinuations speak volumes about you ‘Quaker’.

i think i know (of) pretty much all the members of the religious society of friends in birmingham & can’t of many who would even have been capable of watching the debate online, let alone being interested in it to go to the bother of so doing; if it was that kind of quaker, i totally disassociate myself from them.

The galling thing about “quaker” is that I didn’t find any of his/her comments interesting. They were inane, ramblings of a angry person who doesn’t know where to direct that anger. Worst of all it was badly written and showed no backbone.

If you’re going to attack someone personally then at least have the bravery to show your name and respond to the comments that other people have written.

It takes a unique individual to stand up and voice opinions in a very public arena the way you have and you just need to carry on doing what you feel is right no matter how many people may use personal slur and then pretend it’s constuctive. Easy for me to say I know but one thing I have learnt is to surround oneself with the ones you trust and love and then take a sledgehammer to the rest.

Much as I love the web, sadly that’s one of the downsides – and I think you’re right when you point out it could be one of the reasons journalists are reluctant to engage in online discources. They still should be encouraged to though and if they can get past the criticism, I genuinely think it’ll make them better for it.

What the best way for regionals to deal with this problem is, I’m not entirely sure, but it’s something all editors need to think about.