Who Is That Masked Man (or Woman)?

An argument was made at one of the sessions at the Va. Blogger Conference that anonymous commenting was wrong but pseudonymous blogging was not. It is a distinction without a difference, in my opinion and of some others there. I don’t regularly read the pseudonymous blogger in question, though I did just now and found his or her recent post interesting. Still, considering that many of the same bloggers in another session thought what they did was an important addition to the journalistic record, how would they feel if newspapers carried anonymous bylines in all their stories?

Comments

[blewsdawg]

Hey Bob, I disagree with you completely. I haven't read the comments in this thread, so pardon me if I repeat any points that anyone else has made.

I blog pseudonomously, and do not allow anonymous comments on my site. The difference is that my pseudonym, blewsdawg, is attached to everything I've posted to the three blogs I've run over the course of two years, as well as comments I've posted to other blogs. If a commenter wishes to debate, said commenter is debating my ideas, not me personally. This is different than an argument with your wife, where your habit of leaving the toilet seat up is integrated into an argument about her habit of drying her pantyhose over the shower rod.

If you're looking for inconsistencies in my position on some issue as opposed to the issue at hand, those may be found in my previous postings. An anonymous commenter, on the other hand, enjoys total anonymity, with no accountability for ideas expressed in previous postings, even on my own blog. That difference is quite significant.

I'll end my comment on something of a note of agreement. If a blogger or commenter is posting a point of fact, using his/her expertise in some area as the basis of the credibility of the post, that expertise has to be researchable, and must not be anonymous in that case. And, if you're going to blog pseudonymously, it's only ethical to use the same pseudonym, even if you change your blog(as have I). And don't forget that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, not only under a pseudonym, but under the same pseudonym.

[Bob]

I must admit the post I read at Jaded JD was good enough to get me to come back. And I certainly didn't mean to pick on him or her; it was just the example given at the conference.

But from what you just wrote, Jason, I think we agree on this one, for the most part.

[Jason]

Well, I think it also varies from pseudonym to pseudonym. I've always been a big fan of Jaded JD and respect his privacy because he has shown himself to be one who thinks out their posts before sharing and can provide a legitimate reason for hiding behind a handle. In that situation, I view his body of work as coming from a reliable source that wishes to remain unnamed. But he's earned that respect from me.

Just the same, I can understand the hesitation to jump on the bandwagon of a pseudonymous blogger, especially in cases where the blog wants to view itself as a legitimate source of news and a contributer to the community. It's hard to take what someone is saying seriously if they're not willing to put their name on it. How proud are they of what they're saying if they're not willing to sign it? Why are they hiding? Is it because of their job, their family, protecting themselves, or are they another blogger trying to create false conversations in the blogosphere?

I also think that pseudonyms are a hinderance for the blogger if they want to be taken seriously. Case in point, look at Not Larry Sabato/Ben Tribbit. I geniuinely believe that his body of work and he himself would be taken a whole lot more seriously today if he had just stamped his real name on his site from the begining. Not that people don't take him seriously, but bow he's having to catch up with his own net legacy.

I think that it comes down to whether or not the blogger really cares who cares about them. If they're blogging just to get opinions out and give their two cents, like Jaded JD, then sure, why not. The blog is not an ego stroke in any sense, just a soapbox, and whether folks stop to listen or not is moot to them or their argument. But if they're trying to play news source or newsmaker and they're trying to grab fame and glory in this thing, then they have to be willing to put themselves on the line or byline as it may be.

[Bob]

Jason, that's valid point. But pseudonymous bloggers operate wih too many unknowns for me to trust the information. What the causal reader of such blogs must do is read a large body of his work to determine if it's trustworthy.

I guess it also strikes me as a bit gutless. If you're not willing to put your reputation and career on the line, then get out of the public opining business. They have a right it to do, of course, but not the courage of their convictions.

[Jason]

Pseudonymous bloggers keep their name and have a body of work to back-up said name. Anonymous commenters are all the same in the end, you don't know who's saying what, whether it's the same person saying the same thing over and over, the same person arguing with themselves, or the blogger anonymously boosting themselves on their own site. At least with a Pseudonym there is a bit of reliability and a paper trail to hold someone to.

[Bob]

Fair point about the Economist. In fact, there are many news sources that don't byline every story. The difference is you know that if you have a major disageement with a story, you can easily find out who wrote it and hold them accountable. While you can hold Jaded JD accountable, we don't know who that really is.

More important, if someone is delivering info. of a political nature, I, perhaps like you, would prefer to know what informs their opinion other than they are a cyncial lawyer or judge.

[Jon Henke]

how would they feel if newspaper carried anonymous bylines in all their stories?

---The Economist does not byline its stories and no great cries have gone up from the bloggerati. It's not as widely read as some US dailies, but it's very influential and respected within some corners of the 'sphere.

I take your point, though, and agree to some extent that anonymity degrades credibility. Ideally, identity would not matter...only ideas. But in the real world, we all like signaling mechanisms like identity.

Of course, if one consistently puts out strong ideas, the anonymity hindrance can be overcome, but I still find the unusual psuedonyms somewhat...unbecoming. ("am I really taking seriously a person who uses the name 'MK Ultra'")