« Attn: Sierra Madre Girlfriends–SGVT On Wrong Track RE SM CM? UPDATED | Home | Barrera on the LAT Local Blogging Article »
On Journalists and Blogging, Oh Muse, I Speak:
By Publius | July 23, 2007
I like Kevin Roderick and LA Observed, but I don’t understand why he has such a problem with anonymity.
This morning Roderick criticized Jonathan Abrams’ LAT article because it “doesn’t really answer why the writers [of blogs like ours] won’t stand behind their reporting and commentary.” But we do, Kevin. If we really cross the line, (or even if we just anger someone powerful), our anonymity would go out the window in a lawsuit and we’d be in the same boat as any journalist would be in such a situation.
I can understand Kevin’s long running debate with Mayor Sam’s blog. (And I can understand why Mayor Sam’s is upset that the LAT article doesn’t mention them.) Put it this way: I can understand Kevin’s journalistic anger with anonymity when it is misused, although I personally think that currently Mayor Sam’s provides a service to Angelenos that may be rough around the edges but in the final analysis is a very good thing.
As I’ve always said, I see our anonymity as a temporary thing anyhow. At a certain point we will likely reveal who we are, and if not there is little doubt that someone else eventually will. And as usually happens when the authors of anony-blogs are revealed, it will be somewhat disappointing to those who were hoping for something more exciting. Ultimately we will sink or swim based on a reputation derived from what we write (in a very informal fashion) here in our spare time, not who we are or what else we do.
I’d like to ask you, Kevin, in a friendly spirit, if you can admit that there are could be possible reasons (ranging from the deadly serious to the not-so serious) to write anonymously? Even if you think there aren’t any reasons to write anonymously, why is it such a big deal?
Roderick once said that an SGVT article on us by Frank Girardot contained “the usual b.s. comparing anony-bloggers to the writers of the Federalist Papers, a specious tie-in the Foothill Cities bloggers don’t discourage by writing as Publius and Centinel.”
Jiminy Christmas, batman! Obviously, the real Centinel and Publius were both engaged in a debate concerning the very framework of American government itself whereas we talk about bears in Bradbury and donuts in Glendora. Our pseudonyms should be taken with a block of salt.
There is a non-specious tie-in, however.
Lots of folks used to be anonymous in the papers, but whether they were great minds like the framers/founders or the muckrakers of the day (or a combination of the two) no one had a cow over it. They all saw good reasons for anonymity, and they didn’t think it was a big deal. One reason, for instance, one might want to remain anonymous is that partisan ties really matter less at the local level. By staying anonymous one could avoid being placed in politicized categories without “hiding” where you stand on the relevant local issues.
Obviously, many bloggers are irresponsible, whether they be anonymous or not. Who cares? Sue them if they get bad enough. Otherwise let free speech be. The more the merrier—let a thousand flowers bloom—unless, of course, you think that most the people out there reading are idiots.
I don’t think this is true of Kevin, but let me explain what I think is in many cases the hidden assumption upon which MSM journalists usually premise their angry arguments against blogs and anonymity.
The journalistic disdain for blogs usually arises from journalists’ unspoken premise that without their enlightened “objectivity” the huddled masses would get confused and inevitably be hoodwinked by politicians and corporations. You see, they think that you need them to know what is going on in the world. They think you need them to cut through propaganda and see the truth. They think they are, in a word, indispensable.
In reality, of course, the way news and related information is presented and discovered is rapidly evolving and most journalists and papers are behind the curve. In the meantime we have to hear over and over again about how shallow online news is (?!?) and how horrible it is that less people are watching 30 minute TV shows that package news issues into 3 minute segments.
I don’t think the new media is new (in fact, it hearkens back to something older), nor do I think it is a problem. I’ll give you an example.
The Claremont Insider routinely twists every post and almost every news item about Claremont into a rant against a group the blog perceives as Claremont’s ruling elite. I may or may not always agree, but the Insider’s biases are pretty clear in just about every post. In fact, the point of many of these posts is to argue that such biases are actually true reflections of the way things are in Claremont.
The odd result is that I know a hell of a lot more about where the Insider is coming from than I do about where many of the local journalists in Claremont are coming from on matters that might influence their view of things when they write about Claremont city politics. Thus, the Insider helps me triangulate the truth of the matter because I know what perspective the blog is coming from—something I may not know about a local journalist with ties to a local city. (The Insider was justifiably mentioned in the LAT article along with us).
At the end of the day, there are lessons from our experience with Pomona as mentioned in the LAT article—lessons to be learned by bloggers, local government officials and journalists alike. I hope to post our own primer for local government officials in the coming days. But I fail to see what the big deal is when it comes to anonymity. People are smart enough to judge for themselves whether or not we use our anonymous status responsibly, and they don’t need the prophets of journalism to tell them otherwise.
Professional journalists have an important, undeniable, and irreplaceable role in providing local information to local residents. Unfortunately, many of them have been trained to think they are irrefutable oracles of truth and/or infallible filters of information. They aren’t, of course—but to the extent they think they are, they will not survive the ongoing online revolution.
UPDATE: See my latest (and shorter) response to Roderick’s recent criticism here.
Last 5 posts in Media
- Local Journalism Flourishing? Ad Revenue Still Plummeting? - July 23rd, 2008
- Fire Blogging in Big Sur - July 8th, 2008
- Pasadena Websites With Imperial Ambitions - July 8th, 2008
- Farewell, Ed Barrera - July 4th, 2008
- It Hurts to Be a Journalist - July 1st, 2008
Topics: Media, Pomona, What Are We Doing Here?, Claremont |
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Anonymity really bothers people. Heck, it even bothers me sometime - like when people leave snide remarks and don’t tell me who they are even though it’s pretty easy to guess by their writing style/attitude/what they bring up.
I am well-known and never post anonymously, obviously. It’s easy for people to attack my character for opinions I have (or attacks I make) because they can point me out, cut & paste a blog entry and save it for the future, etc. It actually may hurt me in the long run but I have always felt honesty in the best policy, especially in politics. However - what may work for me may not work for you and that’s awesome.
It would be interesting to figure out who you two are. I was talking with a certain notable person in Pasadena once who had some strong theories about who at least Publius was. I have my own theories as well but I won’t reveal them for the sake of a) I like you guys and b) you probably won’t be able to “get away” with much when people figure out/you reveal who you are. Even if I figured out who you two were, I wouldn’t tell a soul. (Not asking you to reveal yourselves to me - just saying..if I figured it out on my own..)
Others just probably want to find out who you are because although you are both anonymous, you are the most credible bloggers in the area. They want to muck up someone’s credibility with lies and half-truths and rumors and stories.
It’s better this way.
Long live Publius, long live Centinel!
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
[…] http://thefcblog.com/2007/07/23/2042 […]
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Oh, and the answer to this question:
http://claremontca.blogspot.com/2007/07/bloggers-watchdogs-or-windbags.html
as the above post proves, is most definitely “Windbags.”
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Kevin Roderick seems to have a big issue that he doesn’t own the blogosphere. As a former anony-bloger myself I understand why you guys do what you do. At some point you will out yourself. But its up to you. If Kevin Roderick doesn’t like it its just too damn bad.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Of course there is nothing unethical about writing anonymously (like me right now), but why would you want to remain anonymous if you had a voice as (now) far-reaching as this blog’s? I would be at City Council meetings asking people questions, interviewing Pomona Mayor Norma Torres, City Manager Doug Dunlap, A-G, etc. to get to the bottom of these leads rather than thrashing around directionless. … The day you folks drop the anonymity, I pray that you confront Norma Torres — and the rest of the Pomona clowns — and write up their reactions. That would be priceless, and it would actually be journalism, I believe.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:04 am
On the other hand, the problem is that some of us actually have jobs in the government sector and I don’t need the extra pain of the google. Would it be somehow better if I made up a plausible but generic name, like “John Smith”, instead of an actual pseudonym like “Publius”?
July 24th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Maybe A would be at City Council meetings, etc.–and believe me, that all sounds like a whopping load of fun to take to the next level.
But we still have multiple other compartments of life that are much more important. If we start getting paid to do what we need to do to take it to the next level, that’d be fine with us, of course.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:14 am
[…] On Journalists and Blogging, Oh Muse, I Speak: […]
July 24th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Publius and Centinel should wear luchador masks and make public appearances..maybe wear baggy clothing so nobody can figure out who you are.
That would rule if you guys showed up at, say, Eye Level’s blogger picnic like that. Maybe even park far away so nobody sees your cars.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Luchador masks are like..$20
July 24th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Luchador masks rule, partly because they have instant comedic value.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Excellent and thoughtful post as usual from Publius. We especially appreciate the mention: “The Claremont Insider routinely twists every post and almost every news item about Claremont into a rant against a group the blog perceives as Claremont’s ruling elite.” There is a wide diversity of news in Claremont. Our guess is Publius has been talking to some Claremont city officials. Maybe even Mayor Yao or Mayor Pro Tem Ellen Taylor. We think Mayor Yao is Publius. That would make a lot of sense. Or Butch Henderson; he represents the ruling elite in Claremont. Those people are so power-hungry. They just don’t have a grip on reality. They are out to get us, to unmask us. We feel it. They use radio waves from the new CodeRed system. The lights are so bright…I’m spending all day sucking screen…there are so many of them…they are all over me…grrrr…gurgle….gasp.
July 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am
That’s why we love the Claremont Insider–they have a sense of humor about themselves over there. In my opinion, that’s one of the major factors that separates a true gadfly from a concerned citizen.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:24 am
El Publiuso Y El Hijo Del Centinal
July 24th, 2007 at 11:33 am
The funniest part of Roderick’s position is that he has no problem publishing material sourced from anonymous folks. So, if an LAT writer uses an anonymous source, that’s acceptable. But if the anonymous source cuts out the middleman (who in the case of the LAT is hardly unbiased anyway), this is unacceptable.
So, if some-unknown-body stands up and says something, that’s no good. But if I say “some-unknown-body stood up and said something” that’s OK?
Putting a reporter in the middle makes the source more reliable than if that source just speaks up with a pseudonym?
What a bunch of bovine scattology!
July 24th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I don’t have a problem with people blogging anonymously — except I feel bummed out that they can’t come to the Pasadena bloggers’ picnics!
As for myself, I don’t blog anonymously partly because I think it’s hard to stay anonymous for very long. I don’t have much faith that anything I put on the internet anywhere could stay secret over time, so I figure I might as well put my name and face to it from the start. Plus, it’s kind of fun to get to know people in person as well as online. I like having those two worlds feed back and forth.
It sounds like Publius and Centinel already plan on going public sometime in the future and are starting out anonymous for different reasons. That works, too.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:54 am
You could also come dressed up in a two-person horse costume.
Costumes are totally fine at the picnics, by the way, if they mean you feel comfortable coming.
There’s a Darth Vader mask you can buy that comes with a voice distorter, too. That might be even better.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
There’s a Darth Vader mask you can buy that comes with a voice distorter, too. That might be even more anonymizing!
Costumes are totally fine at the picnics, by the way, if they mean you feel comfortable coming.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
[…] On Journalists and Blogging, Oh Muse, I Speak: […]
July 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
That would be awesome if one of them wore a darth vader mask with the voice distorter
But being out in the hot August sun might not be fun to play dress up in.
They should telecommute in from a prepaid cell phone.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Yeah! Or we could have a virtual picnic in second life at the same time. If I could only figure out how to move around in there…
July 24th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I can see it now: they show up at a costume party dressed as Publius and Centinel (I assume the Roman, not the Transformer), but Publius dresses as Centinel and Centinel dresses as Publius, so they can maintain their anonymity by denying that they are the real Publius or the real Centinel.
Ah, the possibilities are endless.
(And kudos to the Claremont Insider for making his point very well and making me laugh out loud — I think I just gave away my age and should have just said LOL or something like that).
July 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Agreed about the Insider: the CodeRed reference had me roaring…
And honestly, all the costume ideas are high-larious. If we showed up in one of those two person horse costumes…bwhahahahahahhahahha
An affordable housing bunny costume needs to be worked in there somewheres…
July 25th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I think we should all show up to the picnic wearing costumes of our favorite historical character. In my youth, I was Martha Washington for Halloween one year. I’ve also posed as Mrs. Potter Palmer.
http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Impressionist/pages/IMP_Palmer.html
But I love the horse idea too–and the affordable housing bunny should look like the one in Donnie Darko.