On occasion I've seen blogging and what it's evolving into described as citizen journalism. In fact it seems to me that Jim Elve, our proprietor at the E-Group, has used that phrase himself more than once. Discussions on this subject often centre on the journalism part but I think we'd do well to remember that the word "citizen" is also part of that phrase.
Secret ballots are an accepted part of our electoral process. While anyone is free to advertise his or her preference for an elected office, it's accepted that some choose not to and that in no way invalidates their choices. When my ballot is counted, my name isn't attached to it. So when some suggest that a different standard should apply to a blog post than to a ballot, I have to wonder what they think the blogosphere is or what they're trying to turn it into. And I'm afraid that imposing that higher standard might take the citizen out of citizen journalism.
Close readers of the E-Group may have already figured out that I'm writing this in response to a conversation that played out in this thread where there was discussion on the pros and cons of pseudonymous blogging and anonymous commenting. A quick glance at the byline on this post should be enough to indicate which side of the issue I come down on.
At one point in the discussion Jim announced a new policy for this group blog: all new writers would be required to post under their real names. Even though it was clear to me that I would be grandfathered in as an established member of the group, I was uncomfortable enough with the idea that I immediately announced my intention to withdraw from the group if that policy was going to stand.
If I'm interpreting Jim's subsequent comments correctly, that policy has now been retracted or at least amended. Jim has indicated that as a consumer of blogs, he tends to be more sceptical of content when it's not published under a real name. He's inclined to examine the content more carefully and to look for more of a track record before he lends credibility to a blogger whose identity remains concealed and he intends to do the same when considering new applications for membership here. Fair enough. I don't approach blogs as a consumer in quite the same way — at least not consciously — but it's a perfectly valid approach. And if I was considering giving someone posting privileges at my own site I'd probably be fussier than Jim is. I just question whether an across-the-board policy rather than a case-by-case approach is the right way to proceed. And I'm concerned about the implications of too much policy imposed on blogging from the top down.
One of the wonderful things about this medium, and one of the main reasons it's growing and evolving so quickly, is the astonishingly low barrier to entry. Anyone with a minimally powerful computer and an internet connection can start a blog and join the conversation. That's why we call it citizen journalism. It provides a way for anyone to participate in the public debate in a way that didn't exist just a few years ago. So I think any policy that creates a new barrier to entry should be viewed with scepticism and approached with caution.
Some have argued that's it cowardly to present an opinion without attaching your real name to it and staking your personal reputation on it. That argument in itself acknowledges that there can be a risk attached to expressing some opinions. While full credit should go to those who knowingly face risk when they express themselves, why should risk be required? Isn't the blogosphere big enough to allow for those who are concerned about losing a job, being shunned by the family or even being stalked and harassed by some looney tune with a poor grip on reality and no impulse control? What would it say about a medium that many of us regard as a positive development for democracy if we started to deny participants in the debate the ability to decide for themselves how much or how little they care to reveal about their personal lives?
It's also been argued that criticism of the established media is invalid unless those who put the criticism forward meet the same standards that apply to the media practitioners themselves. At best that argument indicates a misunderstanding of what the blogosphere is and what it can be. At worst it's both self-serving and a pretty scary indication of where things stand these days. When we talk about what we traditionally think of as "the media", like most bloggers I'm not a member, I'm a consumer. Corporate consolidation in the press and the broadcast industry is moving us increasingly to a place where the media as institutions are accountable to their shareholders first with the public coming a distant second. If we as consumers are required to submit our resumés and pass muster before our complaints about shoddy service are even considered, then we're in even more trouble than I thought.
My own grip on anonymity is actually pretty weak and I suspect that the repercussions of dropping the mask wouldn't be all that significant for me personally. And I can certainly imagine circumstances where I would decide to do just that. If I was being paid to pontificate, if I was blogging on behalf of a candidate for elected office or working on behalf of an established lobbying group then I'd have to seriously consider whether different standards should apply. But right now I'm not doing any of those things. I'm an individual expressing individual opinions who happens to have chosen blogging as one way to do that.
In our society freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege. We don't require that an individual citizen meet some pre-ordained set of criteria before being allowed to express an opinion. Instead we err on the side of allowing free expression unless and until that freedom is abused. I'd like to think that blogging can continue to work in the same way. Certainly allowing for anonymity will mean that at times the blogosphere is messy and difficult.
The same can be said for democracy.
Cross-posted at the E-Group.
I'd probably have been a little more careful with spreading my identity out there if I could do this all over again. Now, I can google myself and get to my blog, which isn't necessarily the best thing, especially if I enter the academic world. But hey, I did it to myself.
I favour keeping it as open as possible. If someone wants to remain anonymous, he or she can do so and freely assume the slight credibility hit that comes with anonimity.
I think it goes away when pseudonyms are long-term ones and online identities take on a life of their own. I don't think I give the Monger any less credit because he isn't posting as Dr. So-and-so, for instance, and I take your views as seriously as if they were posted under your full name.
pogge, I finally worked my way through that entire -- fascinating -- exchange on the E-group, and I must confess, I was sorely tempted to join in, but I am still working out my thoughts, so I figured it would be safer to say something stupid here first.
My conclusions are pretty much yours -- and congratulations on that superb democratic statement above. If Norman Spector is going to call individual citizens, who write to the Internet with no institutional protections at all, "cowards" for writing anonymously or pseudonymously, then he might as well demand that we all start signing our ballots when we vote, too.
How I get to my conclusions, though: I am a bit of a veteran of the New Journalism wars of the 1960s and 1970s, and I can see in Mr Spector's demands on bloggers an interesting confusion.
It is true enough that nobody writes objectively, that journalistic objectivity is an outdated myth that frustrates us all when we're hearing it as a defence from the corporate media.
But the great challenge to corporate-media fatuity didn't come from the names that the great New Journalists signed to their rebellious work. It came from the way that they wrote, from the honest admission, usually the dramatization, of a particular point of view in their writing.
The honesty, the authenticity, the intellectual toughness, is not in the signature (or full biographical and political disclosure) of a Tom Wolfe or a Joan Didion or a Michael Herr or a Hunter S. Thompson (insert dozens of other great names following), but in their open acknowledgement that what they observed, what they reported on, was observed and registered by a particular functioning consciousness who was present at a particular place and time.
That kind of honesty moves people. The authenticity of the writer is implicit in the writing. It doesn't need a CV attached. It doesn't even need a signature.
Norman Spector seems to think that formal credentials establish credibility, but I don't think that most readers believe that. I know that most good writers don't believe it.
Who you are and where you were standing as you wrote will show in what you write. That is the part of the Tom Wolfe seminar that Mr Spector seems to have missed.
That Mr Spector should still require private citizens who are personally vulnerable in ways that he would not be to give up their privacy seems to me either ridiculously naive, a complete failure to grasp what the Internet is and how it works, or, frankly, threatening.
skadl said--
"The honesty, the authenticity, the intellectual toughness, is not in the signature.... of a Tom Wolfe or a Joan Didion or a Michael Herr or a Hunter S. Thompson (insert dozens of other great names following)..."
To which I would add the name of kinghell Citizen blogger, Billmon.
Who, by the way, is really (not just pull quoting, but first person singular) back.
My take on the thing at my place.
I figured it would be safer to say something stupid here first.
I didn't see anything stupid there, skdadl.
what pogge said skdadl.
_____
Me, I'm starting to think that it is the media shills that we need to focus on, not the Pols or their handlers.
Specifically, those in the media with clout, either real or corporate-assisted, must be forced to either put truth on the table or be revealed as the hacks they are.
Juan Cole did it with JGoldberg, Billmon did it with Horowitz and, of course JStewart did it with TCarlson.
This, I think is important for the obvious reasons, but more importantly I think it will serve to embolden those in the Media (and their editors) that want to do the right thing.
I agree with skdadl. One of the most compelling and unique and fascinating and interesting things about reading blogs is that it actually does not matter who the writer is -- it is the writing itself that is important. Blogs are the only communications medium where there is no structure or form, no filter or editor, no publisher or owner, and hence no credibility or reputation other than that achieved by the personality of the blog itself.
Its not bad or harmful to know that what I am reading in a blog was written by, say, James Wolcott or Josh Marshall or Norman Spector. It's just not necessary. Neither it is necessary to know who Billmon or Atrios really are before I can appreciate what they are saying. (And besides, writing under a pen name is fun, isn't it?)
"That Mr Spector should still require private citizens who are personally vulnerable in ways that he would not be to give up their privacy seems to me either ridiculously naive, a complete failure to grasp what the Internet is and how it works, or, frankly, threatening."
The answer to all of the above is 'yes'. ;-)
That's very thoughtful. I can see Norm's point to a degree, but I think it should be up to each person to judge how much respect to give an anonymous voice. I know I have as much respect for your views as anyone's.