This Side Up

The Internet spotlight can be a dangerous torch

Posted 8/5/15

It’s rare that Department of Public Works Director David Picozzi calls me. It’s usually the other way around. He was steaming. Had I been following the exchange on the Warwick WATCH Facebook …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
This Side Up

The Internet spotlight can be a dangerous torch

Posted

It’s rare that Department of Public Works Director David Picozzi calls me. It’s usually the other way around. He was steaming. Had I been following the exchange on the Warwick WATCH Facebook page?

Fact is, I hadn’t been watching the page, but just from the question, I quickly concluded it had something to do with Stacia Huyler, an administrator of the page that professes to watch out for the good of Warwick taxpayers. Huyler, who ran as a Republican in a primary against Mayor Scott Avedisian last year, regularly attends City Council meetings, continues to speak out on issues and is readily lured in by anonymous leads about the misdoings of the administration.

I was the subject of her questioning and insinuations of inside deals when Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur, who owns and operates Stormtite, re-sided our house. Was I getting special treatment, and shouldn’t I have retained an out-of-city contractor for the work were but two of the questions asked. She posted a picture of my house and Stormtite signs advertising the fact they were doing the work as if this were a sin. If I was getting a special deal, Ed didn’t let me know. As for keeping the business in Warwick, I would do that any day of the week.

Picozzi said in her latest exposé, Huyler stepped beyond the bounds when she posted a photograph showing two vehicles with seemingly identical registration plates. The vehicles belong to Picozzi’s in-laws, an elderly couple. They and their vehicles became the subject of a prolonged exchange of comments that illustrate the willingness of some people to believe that city workers, officials and their families are somehow exempt from the rules.

The explanation for registration plates with the same number, as reported in a story in today’s paper, is that the plates are of different categories. One is a standard automobile registration; the other is a suburban plate.

Huyler has since removed the posting and the comments and issued a video apology for not checking out the facts. She sent a personal apology to Picozzi’s in-laws along with a bouquet. It was the right thing to do.

What I find interesting is this medium – the Internet – which so many of us rely upon to stay informed, track down information and increasingly accept as gospel.

The license plate incident is something I can relate to.

Soon after taking on the Beacon in the early ’70s, I noticed that on different days either a white or a black Cadillac was carrying the vanity plate of a city official who will remain unnamed. I took a photo of the white Cadillac one day in front of City Hall, waited a few days and then spotted the black Cadillac with the same plate.

I wasn’t sure what to do with this. A story would have been an embarrassment to the administration, which surely wouldn’t have been forgotten for a long time to come. Yet, I thought, I should do something. Finally, I wrote a fake story and, using the two photographs, printed it, but I only printed 25 copies.

This sophomoric prank delivered an immediate lesson in the printed word. It was like I had flung a hand grenade when I delivered a couple of the “special editions” to City Hall. Within an hour I was being threatened with a lawsuit, even though I thought the story on how the city official was taking a college course in how to use a screwdriver was an obvious spoof. I was playing with fire nonetheless.

Back then, it was pretty easy to put out. Once it was apparent there were only a few issues of the paper with the story and photos and it wasn’t being widely distributed, there were some nervous laughs. The papers disappeared and the plates stayed on the white Cadillac. I didn’t get sued.

That’s not the case with the Internet.

Once it’s there it has a life of its own. That is evident by the more than 100 exchanges on the Warwick WATCH page that in some instances degenerated into personal attacks and name-calling. Unlike the newspaper that is a singular voice, the ability to comment, whether on Facebook or an online page, opens discourse to virtually anyone who wants to participate. Online registration and programs designed to censor inappropriate comments have a way of policing the content and, of course, comments can be taken down.

It can be tricky. On the one hand, an open and unfettered discourse is desirable and may bring out fresh information and viewpoints. On the other, pulling down selective comments could be construed as “protecting” or “trashing” certain individuals.

Even in egregious cases where either the original posting or the comment generated is clearly slanderous and inaccurate and it is removed, it can live on. Online content is easily copied and posted to other sites and, as we know from funny photos to outrageous comments, can go viral.

The web is a moldable medium where even the most researched data can be distorted by outside sources.

Those who chose to join the discourse need to remember they can be standing on a huge stage with the potential of an infinitely large audience that has an inexhaustible supply of rotten tomatoes and vitriol. The question becomes whether it is appropriate to put people on that stage through no choice of their own.

Certain injustices, wrongful acts, wonderful acts, tragic acts and events thrust people into the spotlight whether they want it or not. Anonymity, even for winners of the lottery, is not always an option.

The web has opened the door for virtually everyone to play with that spotlight. It can be entertaining, educational, a waste of time and even harmful. We need to remember that, both as readers and, should we choose, as commentators.

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • WarwickWatch

    Who wrote this? Someone who works for the city of Warwick? Another Avedisian crony? You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading such garbage to the innocent seniors who are the only ones that read the Beacon and don't know any better.

    Friday, April 29, 2016 Report this