Yes, is the answer, but that's getting ahead of ourselves.
The question springs from a tempest swirling around the St. Augustine (Fla.) Record and its efforts - including the use of its own on-property surveillance camera - to remove the veil of anonymity from a blogger who had been highly critical of a local politician.
The Record's editor, Peter Ellis, tells me that his paper was merely calling to account "a political group hiding behind the name of a fictitious person, which is what happened."
Ellis stands by that decision, as he should, although he does regret using the video, which didn't actually lead to identifying the man anyway. But again, we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Some in the blogosphere have reacted so vehemently in opposition to the newspaper's attempted outing that you would think the Record had formed a posse and shot the lonely pamphleteer of yore.
"A Florida newspaper appears to have hit an all-time low in the relationship between bloggers and the media," writes Rogers Cadenhead, who maintains a blog called Workbench and has authored two books about Java. ... "I don't know (the blogger), but he has the right to speak his mind on the Web without intimidation by politicians and the press, whether or not he's writing under his real name. I've been reading the Record for a decade. I can't recall a single time where it conducted an effort to catch a rapist, robber or murderer anywhere near the scope of this manhunt for a blogger."
Cadenhead is a former newspaperman ... who appears to have forgotten a lot about the journalism business. (By the way, I worked for 20 years as a local newspaper editor before coming to Network World.)
OK, time for a bit of background: County Commissioner Ben Rich is apparently a man of many words, some of them just plain whacked, as when he suggested after the horrific Columbine disaster that the actions of the authorities on scene made him "want to go down there and shoot the cop and go in." (Maybe Tip O'Neill was wrong about all politics being local.)
Anyway, it should come as no surprise that a character like Rich would draw political opposition, which he has. One particularly notable aspect of that opposition was a blog (since defunct) written by a pseudonyminous fellow adopting the name "Lee Padgett." Padgett not only lambasted Rich online but strode into the Record's building to purchase an advertisement critical of the commissioner, which is where his "grainy image" was captured by that now infamous video camera.
The Record, believing Padgett to be part of an organized political group out to unseat Rich, not merely a lonely pamphleteer voicing his displeasure with a public official, decided that making public Padgett's identity was the right to do.
They were correct. While there may be a long-held and cherished right to publish anonymously in this country, it isn't any more absolute than other First Amendment rights and should never be confused with a right to remain anonymous. After all, there was never anything stopping the lonely pamphleteer's neighbors from saying, "Hey, that looks a lot like farmer Ben's handwriting."
Truth be told, the Record didn't need a high-minded rational for outing Padgett. The mere fact that the man had kicked up public attention - made himself a person of public interest - makes him fair game for being identified (if not the video treatment). Think Joe Klein and "Primary Colors." Or, an example from the tech world: Last time I checked, the identity of Microsoft's internal provocateur, Mini-Microsoft, was still a secret to the public at large. If I knew, you'd know ... because ... it's ... something ... people ... want ... to ... know.
How the paper went about unmasking Padgett explains much but not all of the uproar. The Record posted the video of Padgett's advertising department visit to its Web site with a plea for the public to send in tips as to the man's identity. This touched off a firestorm in the blogging world, fanned by a brief mention on the influential Instapundit.
In retrospect, editor Ellis says he now regrets the decision to post the video, but not necessarily for the reasons the critical bloggers might expect.
Here's how Ellis addressed the matter in our e-mail exchange:
If I had to do it again, I would have gone to traditional reporting methods right away, bypassing the controversy (which locally has been almost nil, but I've heard from about 10-15 people like you) and kept the high wall between news and the other departments in this building.
What he means by the "high wall" is the traditional separation between the news and advertising departments within a publication.
While I'm not privy to the details, it's easy for me to imagine that the use of that video did not sit well within the Record's advertising department.
Some have said that this was an attack on blogs and bloggers. Not so. I have no problem with them; indeed, we have our own. What I do have a problem with is a political group hiding behind the name of a fictitious person, which is what happened.
Some background: an organized group launched a series of attacks against some elected officials. We wanted to find out what the group is (we now know). For the record, we are not friends - nor are we foes - of these candidates. We are, however, advocates for the public and think they want to know what organized groups are working behind the scenes to manipulate public opinion.
Would I do (the video posting) again? No. First, it raises questions about lines we draw, and, in hindsight, I shouldn't have done it. And second, we got the information by using more standard reporting techniques.
Whether the paper has actually identified Padgett publicly or not I do not know. The paper's online search engine seems a bit balky this morning. But if they haven't you can bet they will.
And that's just rock-solid, by-the-book, public-interest journalism.
Welcome Slashdotters, regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
“Gates for President” group gives up.
Intel and AMD, as well as others, at odds over Vista.
Let’s play: “The Google of (fill in the blank).”
Are we stuck with Cover Your Ass-style homeland security.
This 12-step program for e-mail addiction stumbles badly.
The Onion tees up Vista ... hilarity fails to ensue.
Gates sees no humor in 'Mac vs. PC' ads.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Yes, but...
Sure, the newspaper can choose to go after an anonymous blogger. But I think people also have the right to criticize the newspaper for choosing to do so. Freedom of the press is not the freedom to publish without criticism.
I mean, there's nothing preventing a newspaper from sending a reporter into a bookstore, to see what people are buying, and file a report. "Hiro Protagonist buys Mein Kampf... what is he up to? Story on page A4." But they don't because it isn't a newsworthy story, and I think people get upset about newspapers when they publish non-newsworthy dirty laundry.
I think in the case of the blogger, we should ask, "Is the blogger right?" If he's not lying, then I think it's fair to not probe into his identity.
(Just think of the hysteria caused when someone wants to probe anonymous sources used by newspaper reporters.)
that's a poor comparison
"(Just think of the hysteria caused when someone wants to probe anonymous sources used by newspaper reporters.)"
For a start, an "anonymous source" is entirely different from a political body pushing their angle but *lying*, and pretending the article was written by JimBob Concerned Citizen".
At the very least, by claiming anonymity the anonymous source has already (by implication) warned you to seriously think twice bout anything said, because you can't be sure what their affiliation is or what axes they have to grind, who paid them off.
It's essentially saying "heads up people, somebody said XYZ, no verification yet, but You Have Been Warned".
Pretending to be just another John Q Citizen is absolutely 100% wrong, even simply from the standpoint that they're trying to push a message but starting it out with a complete fabrication (the identity of the source). IANAL, and it might not be fraud in the legal/criminal sense - but that IS exactly what it amounts to.
Like when they say "there's a growing controversy" over some scientific theory/discovery.
Let's see... yesterday I (J Random Scientist) was convinced the theory is wrong (the *entire* scientific community thinks I'm a fraud and a crackpot , words were said, egos were bruised), today I convince *one other person* -> we now have "a growing controversy".
So when asked by a reporter, I claim "there's a growing controversy over this issue, opponents to the standard theory are doubling on a daily basis".
I haven't lied, just don't tell them that the person I convinced I was my three yr old daughter, yesterday.
"For a start, an "anonymous
"For a start, an "anonymous source" is entirely different from a political body pushing their angle but *lying*, and pretending the article was written by JimBob Concerned Citizen"."
Where is the proof of this? What's the group? It seems more like they outed a guy because "he must be part of a conspiracy" when there's no real proof that he is.
The anonymous blogger
U.S. citizens have never had the expectation of privacy in any public place. A newspaper's office is about as public as it gets.
If the blogger was promoting the candidacy of another person through the attacks without revealing who he was, in most states, he probably committed a crime ... especially in Florida. In Florida, anonymous letters about public officials or to public officials are often referred to as poison pen letters regardless of the subject.
In the blogger's defense, public officials are guilty until proven innocent, while criminals are innocent until proven guilty. Public officials are held to a higher standard.
Elected officials who can't stand the heat of criticism -- anonymous or otherwise -- should look for another line of work.
I can't really defend the newspaper for using a video to track the guy down. Some old fashioned reporter's shoe leather would have been easier and more successful. (Who registered the site? etc.)
I somehow doubt that a anonymous blogger in St. Johns County feared for his life by criticizing a county official.
Anonymous criticism is okay. To me if a critic doesn't have the guts to identify himself, then what he says isn't very believable.
That's my two cents (3.2 cents Canadian) and I can't believe I wasted perfectly good electrons for all this. At least I didn't kill any trees.
99% of Media Does This
I wonder why so much fuss is made about this particular anonymous publisher. The St. Augustine Record publishes dozens of AP articles, all of which have either made it through Special Interest filters or in some cases, have been written almost entirely by Special Interests. How about "outing" some of these special interests who secretly decide what should or should not be published?
Quick, a tin-foil hat for "anonymous," please
Anonymous writes: "The St. Augustine Record publishes dozens of AP articles, all of which have either made it through Special Interest filters or in some cases, have been written almost entirely by Special Interests."
Perhaps the silliest, most baseless assertion ever left on this blog ... and that's saying a lot.
It seems that the 'right' to
It seems that the 'right' to publish anonymously reallys isn't a right rather it is a chosen practice. That said if you want to remain anonymous you should take the steps that would maintain your anonymity.
I think that this right we are talking about is about keeping the government from using is position of power to find anonymous commentators when it serves no legal purpose. Or when the obvious purpose is to subvert dissent.
It will be really funny when someone walks into the advertising department of the offending newspaper with a mask on in order to buy advertising. I hope its a big account with a long and established relationship with the newspaper. What fools.
I can't help noticing that
I can't help noticing that Ellis is justifying his actions by claiming he was really exposing "a political group hiding behind the name of a fictitious person, which is what happened."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong -- he has evidence of a single person connected with this blog, both because someone would have to be writing the entries and because someone visited the advertising department in person who may have been that same person. But even though he still doesn't know who that person is, he's declaring that "what happened" is that a whole political group was behind this blog?
How does he know? Is he claiming something he only suspects as fact, to justify questionable actions he's taken on mere suspicion?
We Don't Know What Ellis Knows
As I write today in my response to McNamara, Ellis has yet to report anything about Padgett's identity since a March 6 item in which his most senior reporter couldn't find it.
It seems pretty clear to me that all the paper had on the blogger was its suspicions when the video was released to the public. And that's what I'm objecting to.
You must be suffering from allergies...
Because you can't smell the newspaper's bullsh*t.
It's a well know fact today, the mass media is used all the time by "anonymous sources" to slander, spin and shape the conversation without having to pay any political price. Think about the Plame case for example. Why should bloggers be held to a higher standard?
Second, I think the search engine for the newspaper is fixed. I could only find three entries for Lee Padgett, but none of them name the front group. In fact one of their articles claim Lee Padgett might be breaking the law. And the Editor's letter reaffirms this charge. So if Lee is a real person, he's got a lawsuit against the paper.
Finally, we should ask what does this do to other bloggers. There are plenty who use a nom de plume and they have plenty of valid reasons. We don't have to list them here. And the actions of these suck ups in Florida will make a lot of honest, intelligent writers think twice before publishing.
But then again, that means less competition for you and your fellow media hacks.