38 Responses to “Want Anonymity? You May Not Want To Blog.”

1. John Burke Says:
   June 7th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

   I agree 100% While I wouldn’t bother “outing” anyone and Whelan may well have exposed “publius” for trivial or vindictive reasons, anonymity in internet political discourse is a potent source of the viriol we all see in the comments on virtually any blog (including all the big ones of left and right). People who want to engage in debate should be prepared to take responibility for their opinions — and they way they express them. There is a reason that the source or sponsor of political commercials and literature in campaigns must be identified. There is a reason why journalists by-line their stories and columns. I see no reason why bloggers should behave differently (although clearly no one should be compelled in any way).

   What’s more, Professor Blevins says he blogged as publius because he had problems with his opinions at work, among friends and neighbors, and within his family! I mean, it’s one thing if you have a job you might lose. It’s quite anopther that you feel your views expose you to reprisal everywhere you look. In that case, blogging may not be for you. After all, his outing was inevitable as his blog grew in audience and influence.

2. Jon Pear (a.k.a. NeuroAster) Says:
   June 7th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

   “If you’ve done nothing wrong

   You’ve got nothing to fear

   If you’ve something to hide

   You shouldn’t even be here” (Tennant/Lowe)

3. Gaucho Politico Says:
   June 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

   as someone who blogs using a pseudonym i do it to avoid potential work related issues. My feeling is that since i dont actually make any money whatsoever from my blogging if i want to protect my income source i should be allowed to do it. It would be different if i was a professional journalist and my livelihood was my writing. i shouldnt be silenced simply because my life circumstances would otherwise prevent me from sharing an opinion. Does what i say have so little value that the world in general would benefit from my absence? your position is essentially that unless you can afford the repercussions in your life you shouldnt have a public opinion and that losing those people would provide no loss to the general public. that is the opposite of what i consider to be freedom of speech. It sounds like you support the proposition that all anonymity should be stripped from reporting? would you support the end of anonymous sourcing in major media pieces? should every Internet post be made under your own name?

   Think about the publius situation. By almost every account except for whelan’s, publius does exceptional work and his pieces are very valuable. if he had to stop because of the outing there would most certainly be a loss there.

   You can read my blog and take what i say with as much authority as you believe it merits. the benefit of anonymous blogging is that the work will speak for itself. good work is recognized as such not because of the author’s name but because it has high merit. As for blogging being about transparency i dont think i have ever heard that. As far as i know its about allowing mass communication.

4. Justin Gardner Says:
   June 7th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

   Gaucho,

   I was very clear. If you don’t want to possibly get outed, don’t blog. Otherwise you’re subjecting yourself and your family to undue risk. I mean, do you really want your blog to upset your livelihood, destroy your career, etc.? And who said I supported stripping away all anonymity? You’re making a pretty big leap there and I don’t appreciate you twisting it all around.

   To the point of transparency, sure, the nuts and bolts of a blog is a publishing platform that’s easy to use, but the idea of “blogging” goes well beyond that. I’ve been following this space for years, and the one thing that will destroy blogging is a lack of transparency. Because if blogs are co-opted by corporate interests, political parties, etc…guess what happens? That speech can no longer be protected as “free” and is subject to a whole host of laws. And if you don’t understand that, you need to.

   Also, I don’t think what you cite as a benefit of anonymous blogging is a benefit for anybody but you. Remaining anonymous actually ends up hurting the credibility of bloggers because you’ll never be able to truly go into an open forum and make your case. And so who has to pick up the slack? Everyone else.

   Last, while I agree that good work is good work regardless of the author’s name, what does that have to do with blogging anonymously? If you become well read enough you’ll be subjected to the exact same scrutiny that any other well read author is put through, and the expectations that come with that. In other words, just because nobody knows your identity doesn’t mean they don’t have an opinion about you and judge your work accordingly.

   My advice remains: be transparent and open or rethink blogging. Because you might screw up your life for very little.

5. Lit3Bolt Says:
   June 7th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

   So I’m sure you disagree with the works of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and the Federalist Papers?

   Anonymity is a way of protecting yourself. Most people I’ve seen defend Whalen’s actions have boiled down to “you should MAN UP and attach your name to EVERY THOUGHT YOU THINK” but I don’t know what internet those people are using. Posting someone’s personal information on the internet without their consent is cruel, especially with something as emotionally charged as politics. It’s a malicious attempt to make someone’s life difficult, to make ad hominem attacks easier, and encourage the crazies to scare the hell out of whoever they disagree with.

   Now if publius blogged for a living, if writing was his main job, I don’t think it would be an issue. You can hardly break into the MSM through blogging without attaching your real name to things you write. But it’s a hobby for many many other bloggers, they don’t HAVE to do it, and I certainly don’t insist on knowing their names. The substance is what counts.

   Whalen’s response had nothing to do with the argument at hand and everything with attempting to embarrass and shame publius out of existence. Saying Blevins should have expected it after 5 years of blogging is like saying Ed Tiller should have expected to be assassinated. Um, it’s still wrong.

   Also, 5 years. 5 years he blogged and this never came up. So yeah, this was a malicious outing, and it shouldn’t be condoned just because “oh that’s just the rough and tumble internets.”

   Sorry for the rant, but it’s almost as if you’re suggesting Blevins is somehow at fault here for being an idiot for not seeing this coming a million miles away, or for not being MANLY enough to attach his blog to his resume. I’ll say it again. 5 years, and he does it as a hobby, and is not a blogger social-climber trying to break into MSM stardom. This isn’t a disagreement or a “left/right” issue, or a MANLY MAN issue. it’s a code, commonly used among humans, called decency. And Whalen is lacking, as well as anyone who remotely agrees with him.

6. Seantaclaus Says:
   June 8th, 2009 at 7:25 am

   At one point, an acquaintance of mine made the observation that if you want something to remain, you shouldn’t blog/journal it online to begin with. I agree wholeheartedly with this. Why? Quite simply, no matter how good one’s password/security is, there’s always going to be the possibility that someone will eventually intentionally hack or unintentionally stumble into private entries. Sometimes it’s a matter of flawed code. Other times it’s sheer determination. Yet other times, you may have simply forgotten to log out before someone else uses whatever computer you may be accessing from.

   One’s online identity, or “Pseudonymity” as MGK phrased it in yesterday’s post on this very subject on Mightygodking.com, is very much subject to the same general principals that apply to posting anything. If you truly want pure anonymity, the only way to do it is to keep yourself completely separate from your pseudonym, not disclose said alter ego to others (no matter how good a friend they are– there’s always a chance it could slip, even with the best of intention), and post from some device that nobody will ever have access to. Even then, you have to deal with IP logging, stalkery fan types, stalkery non-fan types, hacking attempts, account traces, etc. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. If someone really wants in, whether for a reason or simply out of boredom, and has the time/skill, if your posting device/service is connected to the internet, it’s simply a matter of time– just ask any government or corporation with computers connected to the internet.

   However, I digress.

   While I think that outing someone out of being vindictive/petty in the manner of the current subjects is representative of a bit of d-baggery on the part of the outer, one must still wonder if the outed party processed the possibility of said outing when first taking on that identity.

   Just this last week, I took most of my blog to “friends”-only, due to the substantial increase of traffic that will occur once I’ve implemented a current project, and just not needing for some of it to be out there for general public consumption. At the same point, I also did it because I’ve got 8 years of blogging that’s in dire need of tagging and reviewing, so that I can then make what I _DO_ choose to make public easier to navigate.

   You may be asking, what if the non-public and filtered entries do become public? I’ll cope. While some of what’s there may incense some acquaintances/friends/family for various reasons, and I may prefer to not have to deal with that awkwardness if it can be avoided, I can still live with that.

   Now, if you go to my blog, while it doesn’t directly state my name, all it takes is a glance at my user info to pick that out, if you’ve not picked it out from the link to my website. Obviously, I’m not concerned with anonymity. With the aforementioned project implementation, I’ll specifically be going the opposite direction, as it will benefit me to have more exposure. That doesn’t mean that I can’t still _try_ to do some access filtering. For example: Some of my relatives have found my Twitter, due to the Facebook crossposting. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before someone tries to actively post to my blog (my mother already has, but she doesn’t understand enough about the internet to know how that works… for now). Hence, why I still opt to keep filters.

   Ultimately, as bloggers, we’re exhibitionists. Doesn’t matter if our posts are public or just visible to a select few, whether we opt for anonymity or visibility– we’re doing it for somebody to read. Our reasons may vary, but whatever the reason is, it still boils down to an exhibitionist catering to a voyeur. As such, no matter where we fall as to identity, we are with every post making ourselves more visible to our audience. With that, I understand why some people wish to keep it separate from their work life, or even their personal life, as it may well cause conflict, warranted or not. I certainly would not have listed my blog on the application when I worked at the Home Despot. On the other hand, as a freelancer in the art field, I have no problem sharing it with anyone curious as to it and it’s content. Anyone that knows me, knows that my writing is a direct reflection of my normal conversation and thought processes, just minus some of vocal conversation habits that are a bit more engrained than I’d like… *grin*.

   I do agree with much of the general premise of Lit3Bolt’s commentary regarding Plubius, and anonymity being a form or protection for one’s self.

7. Simon Says:
   June 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am

   In terms of broader principles, I by-and-large agree with Justin, and find myself agreeing more with Krauss than Olson. There are, to be sure, good reasons to blog anonymously, but the fear of professional consequences and personal embarrassment arising from the connection of your name to your writings aren’t among them, at least as a general matter. (On this point, I evidently disagree with Feddie.) Michael Krauss puts it well: “None of those kinds of justifications are met by the belief that one’s colleagues, friends and family will be ashamed to know one’s real views. Nor … is it acceptable to try to trick tenure committees by hiding one’s true views until one gets tenure.”

   To the contrary, in fact: If you write hateful tripe under a pseudonym, and you wouldn’t say it for fear of the consequences were your name on the byline, that is an argument for disclosure (indeed, for outing), not for preserving your anonymity. Cf. United States v. Foster, No. 09-1248 (7th Cir. May 1, 2009) (Easterbrook, C.J., in chambers), slip op. at 4-6. As James Joyner put it yesterday, “[s]igning my name to what I write makes me think twice and the active realization that others whose arguments I’m engaging are real people also tends to make me more reflective.” (See also Dave Schuler’s observation in the same post (“Posting your writing on the Internet isn’t a private correspondence it’s like posting a notice in the town square and writers would be prudent to post nothing on the Internet that they wouldn’t care to sign their names to”).)

   All of the above, however, is abstract principle, not analysis of this particular situation. I am not familiar enough with Obsidian Wings (and do not intend to become so) to determine whether, in this situation, outing was warranted. I will pass on that issue. My point is that the answer to that question turns on the tone and substance of Blevins’ output, not on an a priori assumption that outing someone is always inappropriate. I reject the latter theory, and to the extent that it is premised on the such, disagree with the chorus of disapproval that has erupted against Whelan.

   This post was apparently the spark point, and standing alone, there is nothing in it to justify Whelan’s outing of Blevins. Disagreement won’t do it, and nor will a simple exchange of fire. But various posts reacting to Whelan’s choice, including Krauss’, op. cit., indicate that there was a history between Blevins and Whelan, and it may well support Whelan’s decision. After years of defending Ann Althouse against a torrent of anonymous sniping, I conclude with little hesitation that a blogger writing under their own name has every right to lose their patience with–and take appropriate action in regard to–an anonymous writer who directs a constant stream of vitriol toward that blogger without having to take any personal responsibility for their actions. (This is by no means, quite obviously, to suggest that Althouse agrees with me about this.) Likewise, even if there was no history between Blevins and Whelan, if Blevins’ writing was consistently appalling, and I do not say that it was, that might well justify Whelan’s choice. To reiterate, though, the propriety of Whelan’s choice is tethered to what Blevins has said, not to poorly-reasoned netiquette.

   There was a time when I thought that no one should have any kind of anonymity online. It would be far easier, I thought, if every user was given their own IPv6 subnet and their comments signed based on it. I’ve come to see that such a position is extreme and probably unwarranted; there are situations where anonymity is appropriate, and there are many users who avail themselves of the privilege without abusing it. There is nothing wrong with writing under a pseudonym, per se, and I know many people who do it profitably.

   But it is a privilege (albeit that it is a right against government action, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)), and if a person uses it irresponsibly — to say things about people that they would never dare say to a person’s face, as we have seen repeatedly in the context of bullying on social networking sites, or even were their identity known, as we have seen in the context of the annals of anti-Althousiana; to say things, or to say them in terms, that a reasonable person would never dare use if their name was attached to it; etc — they not only can but perhaps should be unmasked. My bottom line is Justin’s: “all bloggers (public or anonymous) should get into this game with a full understanding of the risks and consequences. You have to ask yourself if you really think it’s worth losing your job or alienating your friends and family just because you want to post your thoughts publicly.”

8. Simon Says:
   June 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am

   The answer to Gaucho’s question about anonymous sourcing in MSM articles is yes, also. I apply a presumption that if a journalist quotes an anonymous source, there is no source and the journalist made the quote up. That presumption can be rebutted (if the quote contradicts the journalist’s story narrative or ideological preferences, for example, or if it is buttressed by credible evidence), but it requires far more good faith than the journalism profession has earned to cede them the power inherent in trusting that convenient material credited to anonymous sources is valid.

9. the Word Says:
   June 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

   Simon-
   How did that work for you on Watergate?

10. Tully Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    I suspect you’re baiting me, Justin. ;-)

    Aren’t we trying to demand the same respect as journalists?

    Can you possibly set the bar any LOWER, Justin? Journalists have spent much of the last couple of decades proving that they deserve ZERO inherent respect for being journalists qua journalists, ably demonstrating that to much of the field objectivity had become little better than a mask to hide their blatant non-objectivity behind. This is just another form of the logical fallacy of the “argument from authority.”

    Sorry, but in general arguments stand or fall on their own, not on the basis of who utters them. The recent history of “mainstream” journalism argues that as strongly as anything can. It mattered not one whit in RatherGate if Charles Johnson was named or anonymous; the “blinking memo” evidence he produced in moments stood on its own and could be reproduced and verified by anyone, and any impartial examination of Rather’s “evidence” showed that it was clearly quite suspect, that his stauts as a “journalist” had been used to lend it MUCH more weight than it deserved.

    As others have pointed out, even the Founding Fathers recognized the principle of avoiding the fallacious argument from authority in a battle-of-opinion, and publicly debated the merits of governmental and political issues in anonymous/pseudonymous form precisely to (a) get away from the cheerleading and cult-of-personality issue and let their arguments stand or fall on their own, and (b) to put a buffer between themselves and those who would punish them simply for offering said arguments at all.

    The question resolves to (at least) two distinct issues: the argument from authority (and the transparency argument is mostly a subset of that) and the idea that because the internet is NOT truly anonymous, that therefore anonymity/pseudonymity has no place in it. The first is self-demonstrably fallacious logic. The second is the same logic that, say, Operation Rescue has employed in publicly disseminating the home addresses and license plate numbers of clinic personnel and patients. It may be technically legal, but that doesn’t make it right. That anonymity/psuedonymity can be breached is not an argument against using anonymity/psuedonymity, only an argument against relying on it as an absolute.

    In any case Whelan’s outing of publius (and publius’s personal baiting of Whelan) was irrelevant to the substantive arguments of either, and boils down to a conflict of personalities and a race to the bottom regarding who could best demonstrate that they could be the bigger jerk. (Obviously, Whelan “won” that heat.)

11. Justin Gardner Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    I believe anonymous sourcing in whistleblower cases is MUCH different than day to day publication where people are taking potshots at people.

    Also, Simon, that’s a REALLY bad presumption to make. Sure, you have random times where people just made stuff up, but by and large journalists can back up their sources.

    Tully, all good points. But, yes, I am arguing that if somebody is anonymous they have less weight in the conversation because the channels they can communicate through are severley limited. Also, harkening back to the good ole days is all fine and dandy, but it’s a MUCH different world now and the rules have changed. You seem to be thinking on a grand, philosophical level and I’m talking about the nuts and bolts of day to day blogging.

12. Tully Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    I would also point out that there is a BIG difference between anonymous posting and pseudonymous posting. A consistent pseudonym is as much a “brand” as any name can be, as publius can attest. His posts are neither more nor less valid now that his name has been exposed, and his “brand” has not changed, just as hilzoy’s did not when she was outed. You need a phone number to contact them? A home address? No. They can be emailed via their blogs.

    Likewise, the “weight” you speak of is only marginally relevant at best once one steps past the argument from authority.

    Truly anonymous posting OTOH is something more associated with trolls, driveby’s, and flamethrowers. But pseudonymity? Heh. Only as good as the brand you build.

13. John Burke Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Justin still has the upper hand against all comers on this issue. A few points:

    – Bloggers certainly have the right to use a pseudonym, but anyone who blogs anonymously should not cry about being outed at some point. If you stand to lose your job over what you’ve blogged, a prudent person would not blog. In Blevins case, he became influential enough as Publius to annoy another influential blogger who outed him. It’s also possible to be found out by your boss in a dozen other ways, even if your blogging is “a hobby.”

    – It’s a hobby for almost everyone, in fact. Not much money here.

    – Citing Hamilton, Madison and Jay gets you nowhere. A better analogy if you’re comparing us to the early days of the nation would be to the commonplace use of pseudonyms then to print malicious lies about one’s political rivals.

    – While there are plenty of pseudonymous bloggers who are very nice and plenty of named bloggers who are very nasty, it’s hard not to believe that anonymnity fosters incivility, and over time, on balance, anonymous publishing coursens political discourse.

    – Think of it this way: if every Sunday, The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal printed just one anonymous op-ed that slammed and slandered your favorite politician, would you think as highly of either paper as you do now?

    – If not, then why should we not respect bloggers more when they put their names to their opinions? Not that we can force anyone to do anything, but we don’t have to take them as seriously, do we? And we don’t have to commiserate with them when a political rival outs them.

14. Justin Gardner Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Tully, nice try. For the purposes of this argument, anonymous = pseudonymous and you know it.

    And I still don’t agree. The weight of the argument is hurt by the anonymous/pseudonymous nature of the author b/c the opposing viewpoint can take to other channels of communication and/or the argument will have to be taken up by people who can champion it via those channels, thus diluting the message.

    Also, regardless of how you feel about the media, they’re out there everyday doing their thing and pushing everybody else to be transparent. So if you think bloggers can do the same thing behind an identity curtain, I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. There’s less credibility in posting anonymously simply because of the mechanics of the media. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I don’t see how.

    Last, let’s remember what the whole point of the post was. If you don’t want to get revealed, you may not want to blog. That’s what it all boils down to. The credibility issue was an aside. An important one, yes, but still an aside. Nobody was forcing Publius to write. Still, he felt compelled to. That’s fine. But there are consequences to that, especially since there’s a good likelihood that he lied to his employer and family members. So, is that really worth it? I don’t think so. After all, we live in the US and it’s not like he couldn’t find another job or agree to disagree with his family.

15. Tully Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    let’s remember what the whole point of the post was. If you don’t want to get revealed, you may not want to blog. That’s what it all boils down to.

    See, we do agree on something! But that’s much the same as saying that if you don’t want to knock someone up or get knocked up or catch or spread STD’s then you may not want to have sex at all. In that analogy, pseudonymity would be the condom of the internet. Doesn’t mean that your condom might not fail or that someone won’t pinhole your rubber stash for giggles, or that going bareback is somehow more inherently responsible and genuine than putting on a party hat. Shorter version: Condoms can fail. Does that mean there is no reason to use one?

    For the purposes of this argument, anonymous = pseudonymous and you know it.

    BS again. They are different things. Saying it is so does not make it so no matter how often you say it, and there is a distinct and major difference. Publius is not anonymous. I am not anonymous. (Same online and real-world handle for a quarter of a century plus, predating the modern internet.) Digby is not anonymous. Hilzoy is not anonymous. GayPatriot is not anonymous. Patterico is not anonymous. AllahPundit is not anonymous. IowaHawk is not anonymous. They are all pseudonymous, quite identifiable by their consistently-used handles, whether their “real life” names and backgrounds are known or not. Like Eric Arthur Blair. Or Charles Dodgson. It’s hardly a new fad, having been utilized for centuries in public writings.

    I could go on and on, but the point is that a consistently-used pseudonym is a “brand” like any other, and the perceived credibility of said brand is still based on the quality and content of the product. No more and no less than are brands such as AP, or the left-leaning McClatchy, or the right-leaning Fox News, or the left-leaning MSNBC, or…well, you get the idea. Whereas “anonymous” has no brand. It’s anonymous. Could be anyone.

    The “other channels of communication” counter-argument presupposes and assumes the argumentum ad populum (another logical fallacy) and extensions of the argument from authority as somehow magically not being fallacious at a remove or two. Not to mention that it presupposes and assumes the intent of others in blogging in the first place. Their pseudonymity may affect YOUR utility in using THEIR work for YOUR purposes, but does not at all necessarily address THEIR reasons for posting in the first place. That may or not be a drawback to them

    Also, regardless of how you feel about the media, they’re out there everyday doing their thing and pushing everybody else to be transparent.

    ROFLMAO. “No good. I’ve known too many Spaniards.” Once again, only as good as the brand and the quality thereof. Ask Dan Rather about that. Or pretty much anyone who has ever been either completely misquoted or quoted very selectively out of context by a reporter. In my personal experience, that would be every single time I was ever “quoted” by a reporter. Why I no longer talk to reporters, even on the rare occasion one wants to talk to me.

    Lastly, John Burke, that sleazoids slandered others pseudonymously and anonymously in the latter part of the eighteenth century (just as they do today) does not negate the reasons the Founding Fathers used pseudonyms in publishing the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (or that bloggers employ pseudonyms today). Indeed, it supports them. Those same reasons are reflected in today’s internet culture. And indeed, “publius” took his handle from that used by Jay, Hamilton, and Madison.

16. Simon Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    the Word Says:

    Simon-How did that work for you on Watergate?

    It would be futile for me to speculate on how, but for knowledge of subsequent events, I might have processed stories I haven’t read that were filed before I was born.

    Also, Simon, that’s a REALLY bad presumption to make. Sure, you have random times where people just made stuff up, but by and large journalists can back up their sources.

    Not so. If they can, they do. If they didn’t, they couldn’t. You have to keep in mind the principle of lamppost journalism; Journalists already have a great deal of freedom to tailor a story to their preferred narrative through selective use of quotations and quotees, and the use of anonymous sources even further expands the constellation of destination points.

    If you’re asking us to trust journalists, I’m with Tully on that. Moreover, if we stipulate your view that anonymous quotes are in fact legitimate in the mine run of cases, I would suggest that my presumption is then a really GOOD presumption, one that would be deontologically positive if more people shared it. If the presumption was that an article resting on anonymous sources (which doesn’t exclude “deep background” sources, obviously) was to be considered made up, journalists would be less apt to use them, and people would be less apt to become anonymous sources. A plague of modern government is the pervasive leak, a phenomonon that has almost entirely drowned out the honorable whistle blowing. Changing the cost-benefit calculus by reducing the likelihood that a leak will be rewarded with use might reduce the willingness of government workers to leak.

17. Justin Gardner Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Tully,

    First off, of course they’re different things, but when I said anonymous, I meant pseudonymous if that’s how you’re defining it. However, I’d argue that a pretty easy case could be made that “anonymous” is simply another shared moniker and thus could be consider pseudonymous. See Joe Klein.

    Also, you’re talking philosophical arguments, and I’m not. I not sure exactly where that puts us, but I think it means that I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying in theory, but when all of that is put into practice, things shift because we’re dealing with a decidedly unfair world where the best argument wins. So you can have your philosopher kings, and I’ll keep dealing with the realities of the mainstream media and spinmeisters.

    Simon,

    “Not so” based on what? Your and Tully’s opinions? Sorry, that ain’t cutting it for me. I have a degree in journalism, I’ve worked in the field, I know journalists and sourcing is usually right. We’re not talking about objectivity here. Journalists can’t look up case law. However, editors fact check the **** out of stories to the best of their abilities and try to hit as objective a balance they can. But sometimes this stuff happens on the fly and they do their best to get it right with the information they have.

    Last, your deontology argument is little more than an exercise in mental gymnastics which ignores the fact that many whistleblowers who decided to go public did get their lives and careers destroyed. Anonymity is essential for certain stories, and your distrust of the media or “if things went the way I wanted them to” cost-benefit calculus doesn’t change that reality.

18. michael reynolds Says:
    June 8th, 2009 at 11:21 pm

    I’ve been interviewed a couple of times and several of the things that appeared in the articles bore definite similarities to things I said.

19. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Justin Gardner Says:

    I have a degree in journalism, I’ve worked in the field, I know journalists….

    IOW, you have a dog in this fight.

    Journalists can’t look up case law.

    Why not? Everyone else can. The Federal Reporter and the United States Reports–containing virtually the entire corpus of authoritative federal caselaw–is available free, online. There are some free online tools for searching it, and the big guns, LexisNexis and Westlaw, are only a nominal cost for a newspaper. (I frankly find it hard to imagine that a real newspaper doesn’t already have Lexis access.) State caselaw is also increasingly available online, and again, Lexis and Westlaw have a significant amount of it. Caselaw from Article I courts like the BIA and MSPB is trickier, but no less so than for professionals. So: why–for what reason that doesn’t undercut your argument for their competence–can’t journalists look up relevant caselaw?

    However, editors fact check the **** out of stories

    Don’t believe it. I’ve seen so many factual errors in stories over the years, from the AP on down, that it’s hard to believe that there’s any fact checking. Perhaps my favorite example was a series of articles covering a trial, during which the reporter repeatedly referred to the defense’s “latches” argument.

    to the best of their abilities

    That is not saying much.

20. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 8:16 am

    # michael reynolds Says:

    I’ve been interviewed a couple of times and several of the things that appeared in the articles bore definite similarities to things I said.

    Right. This is only an extreme use of a practice that happens with more benign intents every day. Interviews are rarely if ever shown in raw, unedited form–something that Sarah Palin can attest.

    There’s an incredibly harmful mindset that has sprung up–a malignant outgrowth of “show me don’t tell me”–that if you see a person say something, that’s confirmation that they said it to mean what the person pushing a narrative about it says they meant. It stung Barack Obama with the “lipstick on a pig” line, where video of him saying that line and just that line was circulated to confirm the thesis that he was taking a stab at Palin. It stung Palin over the supposed “what does the veep do” nonsense. It has stung Justice Scalia, and you can find clips of him saying things, wrenched from context, that suggest he believes things that are in fact entirely contrary to what we know he believes. If you have the power to remove the context in which a remark is made, as editors do, you have the power to distort its meaning.

21. Justin Gardner Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 9:01 am

    Simon,

    First, while you may think I have a dog in this fight, I don’t. I actually left journalism because I hated the monotony of reporting the same stuff day in a day out. But I did study the process of journalism, the laws behind it, etc. That’s where I’m coming from…a base of knowledge about the day in, day out grind, not from a base of bias. Basically, don’t assume I’m defending an institution just because I was once associated with it. I’m a lot more nuanced than that.

    Second, when I said “they can’t look up case law” I was speaking metaphorically. You seem to think there’s an absolute objective measure journalists can access, but oftentimes the truth is muddy and open to interpretation. So they do the best that they can with the information they have at the time. And if they find out they’re wrong, they work to amend their previous reports. I’ve seen this numerous times. I won’t deny mistakes happen on a regular basis, but that’s how this business works…as in every other profession on the planet.

    Third, I don’t believe you when you say you don’t think there’s any fact checking. And if you do believe that, well, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

    Fourth, I too have been quoted…correctly…every single time. Was every single word correct? How would I know? I didn’t have a tape recorder with me. And this is even when a hit piece was written about the founder of my company by a local rag.

    Fifth, agreed that lines without context are harmful, but that is done by and large by PUNDITS, not serious journalists reporting on the day to day goings ons or the long lead journalists who break exposés.

22. michael reynolds Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Justin:

    I’ve found myself saying the opposite of what I said. And this from a major magazine with presumably professional reporters.

    In my case it doesn’t much matter because it was a puff piece and I was happy to get the publicity. But the quote was wrong and I didn’t need a tape recorder to know it because it was not what I would ever have intended to say.

    The problem at least in part comes from conflicting needs. The reporter may intend to print the absolute truth, but he has to construct a readable narrative. He ends up deciding he has to impose a narrative and make the data fit the story. The motivation need not be nefarious, he just needs to take fragments of speech from multiple sources and use them to tell a story — often a story he’s already made up in his head before conducting his first interview.

    I also quit writing for newspapers (I used to free-lance articles mostly on food) because a) it was boring, b) didn’t pay well and c) I couldn’t figure out how to use the journalistic conventions to tell an interesting story. But of course I was naive and thought I had to get quotes precisely right. I used to conduct hideously long interviews — interviews that went on until the subjects wanted to hang themselves — because I wasn’t getting a quote I could use. Again: naive on my part.

    None of this is shocking. People see what they expect to see, what they need to see. Which is why I’d like to see schools teach a bit of philosophy, some logic, some epistemology. I don’t think the vast majority of people put facts before opinion or in the case of journalists, facts before narrative.

    It is much harder work to approach a story from a state of presuppositionlessness and then to write about what you actually see and hear, than it is to come at the story with a narrative in mind and then pull the quotes that support your thesis.

    None of which, by the way, helps Sarah Palin. She’s still a ninny.

23. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am

    None of which, by the way, helps Sarah Palin.

    Actually, it does, because there are specific examples of people dowdifying quotes and using them to attack her. Just to pick two that I flagged, there was this, and there was this. And then there’s the insane number of people who believe that she actually said “I can see Russia from my house”; that’s a testament to Tina Fey’s acumen, but it demonstrates the power of a misquote to tar and feather. And then there was the insidiously clever strategy used by the media to set up and provide an excuse for their campaign against her (under the cover, as it was, of “we need to bring the people up to speed on her by determining whether she’s actually her son’s mom”) the lie that Palin “came from nowhere” (that one was comprehensively debunked here). I could go on ad nauseum.

    All of these are specific examples of a general trend: the media manipulating raw materials in order to present a distorted picture that they hope their readers/viewers will buy. They aren’t to be trusted. That’s an unfortunate situation, because there are, I have no doubt, good apples in the profession. But they have been drowned out by the bad. Perhaps when the NYT finally folds later this year, the shockwave will rebalance things, but until that happens, the only thing to do is to read widely and often, and demand the source material.

24. michael reynolds Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am

    Simon:

    It is not media manipulation. Here’s the interview that all by itself kills her off.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

    There were no unfair questions. Her quotes are not chopped up. There is no way to contextualize them that makes her look like anything but an idiot. As a matter of fact, I think that’s an interesting suggestion in any case where the media is accused of editing something to make a person look stupid. (Hannity does it nightly.) If a quote is taken out of context then a fairly bright person should be able to write a frame around it that makes it look reasonable.

    So as a thought experiment, try it: invent something she might have said before or after these quotes that can make them seem intelligent.

    She’s an empty skirt.

25. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Let’s take just the parts that are contiguous, because every time you see a cut, or a reaction shot, that’s an opportunity for editorial creativity. Does what she says make internal sense, with or without the assumption that it was actually given as an answer to the question portrayed as having been posed? Yes. She points out that her observation in the Gibson interview that Alaska is a next door neighbor to Russia has been used to caricature and mock her (it was) and that Alaska’s unique geographical situation involves its Governor in relations with foreign countries (one friendly, one not so much), both directly and indirectly, in a way that governors of other states are not (true also).

26. michael reynolds Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Simon:

    That’s where the argument fails: the sections don’t make sense. They sound idiotic to me and to just about everyone who has heard them.

    I understand video editing techniques a little since I’m involved in the business in a small way and have sat in editing bays while it’s being done. So I’m always skeptical. But Palin hasn’t accused Couric of pulling a Jon Stewart on her, she hasn’t as far as I know claimed that one question was substituted for another.

    What I mean by that is, I ask, “How was your day?” You answer, “Fine.” I then replace the “How was your day?” with “How was that crack you just smoked?”

    That’s not what happened. If that’s what happened Palin’s people would have said, “The question she actually asked makes the answer logical.” I haven’t seen any such specific claim.

    Which is why I have now invented the Reynolds Test of Misquotation: the person alleging misquotation has to be able to show how a particular statement could have made sense in a different context in order to have a credible case.

27. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    I really think the last election season is a testament to the power of suggestion. The claim that Obama is eloquent was repeated so many times that, in the end, people started to believe it. So you would show them a video of him spouting some ham-fisted hackneyed nonsense, and they would coo about how eloquent he is.

    Likewise with Palin. Were there sections in that Couric interview that were problematic? Sure. (For example: I cannot understand for the life of me why she didn’t just answer the newspaper question instead of overparsing it; “I read Alaska Daily News and various online news outlets,” which is the actual answer to the question, is by no means an invalid answer. But she overthought it, and inadvertently, through being concerned–with considerable justification after the Gibson deal–to not give Couric a gotcha opening, gave the critics a new weapon.) Other sections, however, are perfectly coherent and lucid. The video you posted, as I noted above, is an example of the latter. If it “sound[s] idiotic to [you],” I really think that’s the power of suggestion at work: you’ve heard (indeed, said) that it doesn’t make sense so often that the idea’s been drummed into you. When you watch it, you watch through tinted glasses. Nevertheless, her point makes perfect sense, even if you don’t think it has much bite. Those are two different issues: You can fairly dispute its valence, but not its coherence.

28. the Word Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Simon
    Some may see Palin through tinted glasses. (We all see through them in one form or another.) Yours, however, are downright opaque. That you can with (I’m assuming) a straight face put her on the same planet as Obama in intelligence and speaking skills shows just how far off your conclusions can be. I would have no problem saying that the late Bill Buckley was an intelligent man. I don’t know that Palin is up to Quayle or W level intelligence(or speaking skills) and one would hope the bar doesn’t go much lower.

    I can understand why she didn’t answer the questions as well as you think she should have, she is incapable of thinking on her feet. That’s what we all saw, except for you. She has all the intellectual bite of a 90 year old without their dentures. An Empty Skirt.

    btw, I still think the power of suggestion was never more clearly seen when the GOP and the Media mounted a concerted effort to assassinate the character of Al Gore (and I didn’t even vote for him) Were you as offended then? Did you see the Conservative bias of the “MSM ? I think I know the answer, am I wrong?

29. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    the Word Says:

    That you can with (I’m assuming) a straight face put her on the same planet as Obama in intelligence and speaking skills shows just how far off your conclusions can be.

    Nothing in my comment above does any such thing, or prejudges my answer to those questions.

    Nor do I see much evidence that she can’t think on her feet. The Couric interview is better explained by (depending on how charitable one is toward her) a deer-in-the-headlights moment or, as I’ve already indicated above, overthinking the questions, trying to avoid stepping on landmines. Palin, like every other fair observer, had concluded by the time of the Couric interview that the media had taken sides in an unusually brazen way, and that they were out for her blood. She sought to compensate, unfortunately in an ill-conceived way.

    The media attempted to “assassinate the character of Al Gore”? I must have missed that one admist their attempt to canonize him. The idea that the media has a conservative bias, see Alterman, What Liberal Media? (2003), is pure nonsense. Liberals conclude that the media skews right based on a specious bit of reasoning: the media is owned by the rich, ergo, it must skew right — right? Conservatives, by contrast, conclude that the media skews left based on observation: looking at the media’s actual output, and looking at the actual political affiliations of its members. The latter is more analytically sound, and the former doesn’t even hold water on its own terms: ABC, for instance, is owned by Disney, whose principle shareholder (Steve Jobs) and directors (Bob Iger and John Pepper) are all noted liberals and Democratic party donors.

30. the Word Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    I’ve said repeatedly that I think the media is lazy. They go for easy and confrontation.

    I also think that you need to come to grips with the fact that if you are right, the people who are most educated and have the most access to information are groups that you think are biased against your world view. On the other hand, people with little education are solidly with you. Is there any conclusion, that comes to mind? (or would if it were the other way around)

    As to Gore, I guess you missed the “invented the internet” lie. Or the lie about Love Story. There was at least one other high profile one that I can’t remember at the moment that were all patently false. The GOP repeated them ad nauseum and the media took him down by just repeating what any fact checker could have turned up as a blatant fabrication. It became a big credibility problem for him. As I said, I didn’t vote for him, but what was done to him showed a total lack of character by his detractors.

31. michael reynolds Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Simon:

    Just as you are an expert on matters legal, I’m an expert in language.

    I realize I don’t always show it. But I’ve published 22,000 pages of kidlit, earned starred reviews and a rave from Stephen KIng, a Pollie award for political advertising, been a restaurant reviewer, an ad copy writer, a feature writer, a script doctor, an executive producer of documentaries and I’ve fronted documentaries. I’ve written just about every genre there is.

    I’ve written in such a way that readers thought I was a woman, a man, a Christian, an atheist, a conservative and a liberal.

    Some of the people who produced the LOTR movies are asking me to partner with them precisely so that I can bring my word skills to bear. A major web design company is after me. I have literally lost track of the number of people who want me to help them manipulate words and are willing to pay me to do so.

    I’m writing two book series simultaneously and may soon be writing a third. I’ve earned millions in a field that is vastly more competitive than medicine or the law. I have to compete against everyone in the world with a story to tell. And yet, I’m in the rare position where I could — if I were able to clone myself — keep 3 other hard-working versions of myself very profitably employed at writing. In the middle of a major recession and a meltdown of major sectors of publishing.

    I came up with a new approach to online advertising five years ago that major networks are just now beginning to embrace.

    I invented a new approach to writing that both American and British publishers are now beginning to embrace.

    I don’t think there are two dozen other people on planet Earth who have written as much as I have, as fast as I have, in as many genres, in as many formats, in as many styles, as I have.

    I am not manipulated by words any more than you are manipulated by vague or emotional legal arguments.

32. Simon Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Michael, that’s all very nice, and kudos, but in citing that video as an example of that thesis, you appear to confuse the persuasiveness of an argument with its coherence. Her point in that video is, beyond any serious challenge, coherent. It may be unpersuasive, but what it is not
    is an example of Palin saying something that “do[es]n’t make sense.”

33. michael reynolds Says:
    June 9th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    Simon:

    It’s an example of stupidity. She presumably knows the interview will be seen by voters, right? So she gives answers that the vast majority of viewers read as “stupid?” Why? Because she doesn’t have the sense to know she’ll sound stupid, or because she’s stupid?

    Arguing the difference between persuasive and coherent is missing the point. She had a goal: to sell herself and John McCain. That she answered in ways that anyone could have predicted would have the opposite effect, marks her as stupid.

    And she’s kept right on doing it. Her “no one to pray with” remark about the McCain campaign wasn’t just stupid, it was rude and ungrateful, too.

    It’s not the media. It’s her. She doesn’t know what she’s doing. She’s an empty skirt. The media attacked Reagan, Clinton, any number of other pols who all defeated the media. So why can’t Sarah? After all, getting your message past the filters is part of the job. And yet Democrats, Independents and a surprising number of Republicans think she’s a clown.

    So, I ask you, Simon: do you think maybe you’re the one who’s wrong? And maybe she’s just kind of an idiot?

34. Tully Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 10:37 am

    So you can have your philosopher kings, and I’ll keep dealing with the realities of the mainstream media and spinmeisters.

    I will happily compare our relative records of political successes in the real world, Justin. :-) In private, since I am not “anonymous” to you. I think you know how that would score out. And it still would not affect my analysis. Point being, I am quite aware of how things work in the real political world where the audience is often a bunch of cheerleading idiots (no matter how good the team they cheer for) and am demonstrably adept at working in it, thank you. I still suspect you’re baiting me.

    That does not mean I have any respect at all for the blithe dismissal of fallacies as irrelevant–see the follow-up thread. You’re arguing that you don’t care about facts or truth, only about what you can most effectively use for your own purposes. And that line presupposes that others are blogging for your purposes, or for the same purposes you do. Nope. They blog for their own reasons, not to make life easier for you.

35. Justin Gardner Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Tully,

    First, I’m completely not baiting you. That’s a waste of everybody’s time. Trust me on this.

    Second, your experience in the political arena far exceeds mine and there’s no doubt about that. But I wasn’t comparing experience. I was suggesting that you were speaking more on a philosophical grounds, and I was talking about the real world applications now that we’ve moved into a very different media world.

    Third, I screwed up in that last comment. I should have said, “where the best argument doesn’t win.” That word was key to the point.

    Fourth, as stated, I don’t disagree with your points, but when you add up all the pluses and minuses, pseudonimity seems to mainly benefit the person who is pseudonymous more than it does the conversation as a whole. Also, and this again is the main point, those who use pseudonyms should go into this with their eyes wide open to what could happen.

    One last note…the condom analogy was amusing, but blogging is not even close to being a biological need…although some bloggers would have you believe otherwise. :-)

36. Tully Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    LOL. You know I’ll take your word.

    Oops on your third.

    On your fourth, part II first, I’ve already agreed in whole and will happily agree again. Repeat often. Anyone who thinks they can STAY pseudonymous (or even anonymous) on the internet if someone with some fairly common ‘net skills and a lack of ethics gets a mad on at them is indeed fooling themselves. And there are certainly people that have nothing better to do than get a mad on, and can’t spell ethics, much less exercise any. The anonymity of the ‘net is largely illusory, thanks in no small part to the ‘net itself. The bigger the footprint you leave, the easier you are to expose. Your point there cannot be repeated enough for those who think they can hide behind a keyboard. The greatest defense? Civility.

    On your fourth, part I, of course it serves the blogger! As I said, people blog for their own reasons. That doesn’t validate the blind acceptance of logical fallacies where “the conversation” is concerned, unless you wish to argue that people are better served by being propagandized and led as compared to checking and re-checking their assumptions. I am not arguing that an identified blogger who has notable expertise in their field should blog pseudonymously, but that buying into things on such a basis is a tacit acknowledgement of an unwillingness to investigate their arguments and instead accept them on faith, using the convenient rationalization of authority. You end up with little better than dueling authorities, and cheerleaders for same.

    Lastly, all analogies are inexact by definition. They’re somewhat useful in illuminating similar aspects of other things, but that’s about their limit. As far as otherwise being accurate descriptors of other things, they suck. :-) But they can be fun and useful, the error is in trying to extend them to be exact parallels. And heck, sex isn’t a biological need. Needs and wants are different things. Air is a biological need. Sex is a biological want. You can live without it — though you might not want to….

37. Justin Gardner Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    Tully…

    To your response on the fourth point, I think you’re making a big assumption that somebody is more apt to fact check because that person is pseudonymous. In fact, I believe it’s the other way around. If somebody has a name/credentials, the other side will be that much more prone to pick his/her argument apart. However, at a certain point, if somebody becomes pseudonymously famous, that turns into the exact same situation and their identity makes little difference because the other side will want to disprove them anyway. Again, it all goes back to the idea that pseudonymity is ultimately self serving and thus detracts from the credibility of blogging as a whole…at least in my opinion. :-)

    Last, can people really live without sex? I guess all you need to do is ask anybody who’s married.

    OH!

    Ladies and gentleman, I’ll be here all week.

    Don’t forget to tip your bloggers.

38. Tully Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Making no assumption at all on that, Justin, just expressing my opinion on the worth of accepting “authority” in the blogosphere. Namely, little to none. The proper way to state my assumption is that one is less likely to blindly accept a proclamation NOT offered by someone in auhtority, and thus more likely to have to think about it. That doesn’t mean one will think well, but one might actually try to think….

    And the “credibility” of blogging? I’m afraid that’s self-demonstrable by the contents. It mattered not that no one knew who Charles Johnson was when RatherGate came up, what counted was his “blinking memo” and that it was immediately replicable evidence. Solid content, not the name behind it. IMHO, for the most part readers could give a hoot less WHO is producing content they like, as long as they produce it. Blogging [er se will NEVER be “credible” simply because anyone can do it, but some blogs and bloggers will be, regardless of credentials but not independent of their established “brands” in the blogosphere.

    Those who are inclined to serious politics will likewise either be open to valid ideas and argument regardless of who utters it, as long as the tone is not offensive, or so entrenched in their own “convictions” and prejudices that no authority will count unless it agrees with them. They will cheer those they believe to be on their saide, and boo those they believe are not, regardless of content. It’s the intelligent non-ideologues who can be swayed by solid content, and they will tend to distrust claims of authority in the first place. They may disagre upon reflection, but they will at least pause to reflect.

    Political blogging is a seriously small corner of the blogosphere, BTW, however much WE enjoy it. I believe it’s far behind cooking, child care, tech geekery, and generic me-ism.

    But just for giggles, let’s note something about the flap that inspired this post, Whelan’s outing of publius. No matter how you slice it, in terms of “credibility” Whelan outing publius was the dumbest thing he could do, as no matter which theory we ascribe to he did nothing but BOOST publius’ credibility.

    If publius lacked credibility because he was pseudonymous, then Whelan exposing him as law school faculty was Whelan shooting himself in the ass. But Whelan acknowledged publius’ credibility by even noticing his existence and responding. If the pseudonymous publius was not credible, there was no reason to respond. But if publius was credible enough to respond to for other reasons, even Whelan’s simple annoyance at the personality-sniping, Whelan boosted publius’ credibility by putting a set of real-world credentials to the pseudonym, making publius’ sniping even MORE credibly on-target.

    I guess when you’re an unethical hothead, you can’t win for losing. ;-)

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Some More Thoughts On Blogging And Anonymity
• Michael Reynolds Is Moving To Tuscany?
• Blogging lawsuit