Calling a journalist names on Twitter or a comment board is easier but also entirely futile -- and in the long run, self-defeating. Here's why.

"What particularly disturbs me is the way in which sections of the mainstream media and others in positions of power use the worst of what happens online to condemn all that happens online," writes Tim Dunlop in The Guardian. The word 'troll', argues Dunlop, is now used by members of the press as an excuse to reassert age-old elite privilege.

It has become a "catch-all term to describe any behaviour that some journalists and editors deem inappropriate. Their responses to what they call 'trolling' often seem less about combating abuse than reasserting their role as gatekeeper, to restore to themselves the right to decide who gets to speak in public and who doesn’t."

It's an intriguing argument but a misleading one -- at least in an Indian context.

To begin with, Dunlop assumes a certain degree of online civility that doesn't hold true over here. Anyone who has scanned the Times of India website or even Firstpost.com can attest that personal abuse constitutes a significant percentage of the comments, especially on political stories. Comment boards devolve quickly into a free-for-all where party supporters of all stripes hurl invective at each other and at the writer. As for Twitter, with the Congress party jumping into the fray, the Pappu/Feku mudslinging matches have become a daily feature. Decibels are always high and the language gets ugly in minutes. Most sane people quickly tune out and retreat, as the social media gladiators proceed to bloody each other into submission.

Trolling is becoming the defining feature of the online political debate in India. And it isn't doing anyone any good, neither the targets of the abuse nor those who hurl it in hope of getting heard. Here's why.

Shut up and don't listen

The aim of vituperative language is to intimidate the writer, to shame or scare him/her into not writing articles that the angry readers deem offensive. This 'just shut up' strategy doesn't silence journalists but soon makes them deaf. Most of us stop reading comment boards and start blocking twitter handles. And why not? It is human nature to instinctively tune out negativity. It is bizarre to expect a person to respect and consider your views when you have no respect for theirs.

The barrage of abuse doesn't work even when the intent is merely to hurt or humiliate. Even the ugliest of slurs lose their power through monotonous repetition -- and become a judgment on the character of the abusers than their victim. Calling someone a Congi whore or khaki chaddi-loving goon may feel empowering, but it soon becomes a measure of a troll's ineffectiveness.

Worse, the sheer volume of invective serves to drown out the 10-15 percent that offer criticism deserving of attention and often a response. Few journalists are going to scroll through reams of maa-behn gaalis to find and read them.

Creating media victims

Some of the most prominent members of the media have complained bitterly about a toxic online environment, expressing hurt, resentment and often outrage at the kind of abuse they've received from viewers and readers. Celebrity journalists are now beginning to see themselves as martyrs of virtual lynch mobs.

This sense of victimhood is to be expected but also misplaced. Dunlop is right in arguing that technology—for better or worse—has put an end to a vast "the top-down media models of the past, where the audience was relegated to the role of passive consumer". Journalists are no longer ensconced in newsrooms and TV studios, buffered from their audience's feedback. Anyone who can't handle the public scrutiny and yes, the inevitable abuse, shouldn't be in the media business today. This isn't to say that journalists have to welcome personal attacks, but we have to learn to deal with it. I prefer to block, others just ignore, still others bait their trolls.

But the bigger problem with the victim complex is that it discourages self-reflection -- which we the Indian media need to engage in more than ever. Many times, there is indeed a flaw in an argument or the way a subject was handled on a show. Other times, reporting in an article is so outrageously one-sided that it should be taken to task. The great good of the internet is that it allows the audience to hold editors, anchors and reporters instantly accountable. This sense of accountability, however, is undermined by trolling.

When besieged by abusive readers, journalists don't feel penitent but victimised, and therefore more in the right than ever. Abuse offers reasonable justification to duck the "democratic participation" that Dunlop urges. Powerful members of the media may no longer be able to control who can speak, but they can still decide which voice is heard in the newsroom. If the aim is to exert pressure in the way an organisation or journalist reports a story or on a person, trolling is entirely ineffective.

The benefits of restraint

In the 1990s, the American right launched an immensely successful grassroots campaign targeting some of the biggest names in the media business, taking them to task for their 'liberal bias.' Every offending article or TV show would inspire a flood of letters and emails meticulously pointing to the lack of 'balance', highlighting omitted points of view or competing research. No name-calling required. And that's why it worked. Liberals watched in horror as media outlets bent over backwards to accommodate the most outrageous rightwing views in the name of 'objective' reporting.

Calling someone names on Twitter or a comment board is easier but also entirely futile -- and in the long run, self-defeating. The vicious rape and bomb threats in the UK have led to calls for an end to internet anonymity. Many media sites in the US have moved to moderated boards where each comment has to be approved before publication -- much like those old-fashioned letters to the editor. Twitter has introduced a 'report abuse' button as part of its new campaign to crack down on abuse.

The irony is that trolling—which is the extreme exercise of free speech—has now become a strong justification for restricting speech. And no one wins when we become less free. The moral of this lesson: speak softly, and everyone listens, including that #@$%& paid journo.

PS: In keeping with the spirit of this article, I would like to acknowledge Ganesh Athreyaa who vehemently disagreed with my piece on Subramanian Swamy -- as he made politely clear when contacting me on Twitter -- and has penned a thoughtful response here.