The subtle difference between anonymous and using a pen name …
From my inbox:
Mr. Dennis,
As a frequent reader, I appreciate your work.
As a journalist, I was a little surprised recently when you chose to highlight an anonymous blogger’s criticism of my recent column that shared a public
document with the actual public.That bottom line is no one disputes the accuracy of that report, which allowed readers a look at an insider’s critique of a public education system that is
the subject of much debate in Pekin. It was a document written by a public employee and passed around to the public’s administrators and elected officials
that dealt with substantial issues regarding public education. In short, I believe it was very solid journalism.However, it is your recent posting in response to that same blogger that puzzled me. I am not sure how you can rightly decry unsigned editorials and then highlight
anonymous bloggers who take free shots at journalists for printing what is acknowledged as being factually accurate.I do think there is a need for a Pekin blogger that does some of the same work for this community that you do for Peoria. But I believe that person needs to
have the courage to put their name behind their work, as you do. I would actually be interested in talking to you about that subject if you would have a
few minutes to do that sometime.Thanks for your consideration and keep up the good work,
Michael Noyes
Pekin Times Columnist
Michael:
Thanks for taking the time to comment. It’s rare — here in Peoria, at least — for a member of the working press to communicate with the public on a blog about their work. It must be something in the water in Pekin — or a more enlightened philosophy at the workplace.
In any event, I’m not really following the consolidation debate in Pekin very closely. I have no dog in that hunt, no skin in that game, so I have no position to take either way and have no opinion on the quality of the coverage. I’m sure it’s fine.
Knight in Dragonland lives there and sends his kids to Pekin schools. He’s doing what bloggers do: Agitating for coverage that accurately reflects reality as he sees it. This sometimes makes journalists uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable when it happens to me. Sometimes the criticism is legit, and sometimes it just makes me extra cautious that I cover all sides in the debate and don’t “phone in” stories.
Regarding anonymous bloggers: Yeah, it seems that almost every time I’m interviewed by a mainstream journalist about blogging, I am asked about anonymous blogging. Sometimes, it’s obviously the interviewer has a real problem with it, and take strong exception to my qualified support of anonymous blogging while I oppose unsigned editorials. And I understand, especially since reporters have to sign their name to their work and sometimes get calls and visits at their home.
But there differences between anonymous blogging and the unsigned editorial. Most pundit-style bloggers are doing it as a hobby or as a form of community service. Most do it for free, although some — like me — make gas and pizza money. As such, they have real-life jobs and their bosses might be uncomfortable with their employees blogging. There are plenty of stories of bloggers fired because of it. A member of a newspaper editorial board is employed by the newspaper. Presumably, his or her bosses knows which editorials they write, even if the name doesn’t appear in the paper.
Second, there’s a difference between using a pseudonym and hiding behind the anonymity of a group or an institution. The person who writes the words that appear on A Knight in Dragonland is a guy who goes by the name A Knight in Dragonland. You might not be able to find that name in the phone book, but it is a distinct identity. The views are his and he takes responsibility for them in the court of public opinion. Who wrote the editorial in today’s Pekin Daily Times? Well, it could be one of three people who actually type it out. Who’s opinion is being expressed? Well, when the process works as it’s supposed to, it’s supposed to be a group opinion. Unless the publisher stepped in. Or some high-ranking editor with an ax to grind. Or corporate headquarters.
Yes, there’s a subtle distinction between the unsigned editorial and using a pseudonym on a blog. But I think most consumers of both blogs and newspapers get that difference.
Related Amazon Ads
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Huh. I’m starting to notice a trend. People often -although not always- trash anonymous bloggers when anonymous bloggers hit a nerve. Of course, anyone who doesn’t put a name to their writing should be taken with a boulder of salt because journalists who sign their work are more intelligent, accurate, and trustworthy. Uh, yeah, riiiight.
Truth be said, the truth is likely to be found or hidden in either place, for a plethora of different reasons. Sometimes leaks occur because good people witness wrong doing but can’t afford to put their jobs on the line in order to expose it. On the other hand, someone who wants to stir the pot and make trouble is likely to spew inaccuracy and hurtful gossip just for sicko fun and the power in it.
Polly: Indeed. Yeah, someone who deliberately wants to spread lies and spew hatred is more likely to do it anonymously. But that scrap gets apparent real quick. Even anonymous bloggers have a reputation they have to maintain in order for their anonymous blog to have credibility.
Do I recommend that anyone who wants to do a serious blog do so under their real name? Yes. But being anonymous isn’t by definition unethical or disreputable.
Good points, Polly.
I made a comment about unsigned editorials as an aside in a post about the consolidation issue. I wasn’t expecting the response I got! I think Michelle Teheux did a good job of explaining the ideal of the unsigned editorial, while Bill did a good job of exposing how that ideal does not interface well with reality.
Regarding the other things Mr. Noyes has to say … I’ll handle that on my blog.
Thanks for the publicity and defense, Bill.
If, er, I mean, WHEN Watergate happens again, it is very likely ‘Deep Throat’ will be an anonymous blogger. Should we not take him/her/it seriously? Bloggers and journalists, anonymous or not, should be taken seriously on their merits. If a blogger’s or a named journalist’s work is usually right and accurate, they are a good source. Not that I attempt such a feat, mind you, but some anonymous bloggers may and it would be to our detriment to ignore them.
To begin with, rumor is: The Knight in Dragonland is a PCHS teacher. How can he not “see” the lack of education 1-8 at his level? Perhaps the rumor should be: A janitor at PCHS.
Deep Throat was NOT an anonymous blogger. He was an anonymous source who gave two people, Woodward and Bernstein, information about where and what to look for. Then they went out and confirmed what Deep Throat told them, as good reporters do. So many stories would be buried if not for anonymous sources, who tell reporters stuff that they go out and confirm on their own. Anonymous blogging, however, is splashed out there for the world to see. They are not whistleblowers. They are the equivalent of backyard gossips, if they are slandering people without giving their targets the opportunity to respond. Besides, read your Bible. One of those pesky commandments tells us that bearing false witness is a sin. That includes spreading rumors and gossip.
Without giving their targets an opportunity to respond? HELLO! My comments are open! Anyone is able to respond to the posts on my blog … something you’ve done yourself, Mr. Wade. You’re ranting that you can’t fire back at me because I’m anonymous … WHILE you’re firing back at me.
Cool!