If the Internet is the new newspaper, the anonymity of the Internet is journalism's version of a drive-by shooting. It is graffiti, not commentary.
Let your 'Yes,' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."
— James 5:12
One of the most insidious – and in the long-term, destructive – characteristics of the Internet is its anonymity. Like all widespread sins, it's most seductive.
Even the intelligent, fair-minded among us can be blind to the threat and its consequences. Take the example of Los Angeles Times Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, Michael Hiltzik. The Times suspended Hiltzik's online "blog" because he violated the newspaper's policy of posting derogatory comments under an assumed name.
After a rival blogger revealed that Hiltzik had posted anonymous comments on his and other blogs, the Times writer's reaction was to pooh-pooh the matter. Hiltzik essentially dismissed the complaint against himself with the excuse that everyone does it.
Hiltzik, who already has two venues for venting his opinion (a column and a blog), apparently wanted a greater voice. And not surprisingly, what he wrote anonymously in tone and substance typically went beyond what he put his name to.
As a naïve young reporter I learned from editors at the same newspaper why bylines are placed atop articles. When I thought I was humbly protesting that I didn't "deserve" my name appearing on a story of pedestrian quality, a wizened editor explained to me that the byline wasn't a reward. It was to identify me; to make me accountable for what I had written. It wasn't an, "Atta-boy." It was, "This is who is responsible in case you have a complaint."
Click on any blog. Visit any website. Enter any chat room. In how many cases are real names attached to the material you find there?
If the Internet is the new newspaper, the anonymity of the Internet is journalism's version of a drive-by shooting. It is graffiti, not commentary. It's not dueling opinions. It's sniper fire. The danger should be obvious. If not, let's review a few of the problems:
Anonymous writers escape responsibility for what they write. As a result, they are more inclined to say things they can't prove. Anonymous writers who besmirch others deny the person being written about an opportunity to know his accuser. They also deny the reader the opportunity to weigh the veracity of what was written by considering its source.
Comments online are intended to be read, and usually to persuade. Serial anonymous writers in effect stuff the ballot box by flooding discussion with what appear to be many different speakers, when in fact all those made-up names may represent only a few, or even a solitary person.
Anonymity on the Internet encourages these sins. If we are to let our "Yes, be Yes," and our "No, be No," it presumes that what we say is ours. Anonymous writers deny authorship of their own words right from the start.
When the speaker is anonymous, it's no surprise that the tenor of conversation online easily ventures into ad hominem attack, becoming crude, vile, libelous and vindictive. The very same people who commit these transgressions in almost every case would no doubt refrain from saying such stuff – if they had to attach their names.
Whether there's still time to reverse this insidious trend remains to be seen. One way is not to patronize or enable it. I receive my share of e-mail from folks taking exception to things I write, which incidentally always includes my byline. I always respond to the comments, and always sign my name when I do. When e-mail arrives clearly with a pseudonym or unsigned, my first response is to request the writer identify himself if he wants to discuss what I've written. After all, I identified myself. I'm pleasantly surprised that even the vilest complainers usually are willing to put a name to the follow-up e-mail.
Some might point out that anyone can make up a name. That's true. But the essential difference here is that anonymous writers are saying from the get-go, "There are no rules, so I don't have to identify myself and be responsible." In contrast, people who give false names when asked to identify themselves are saying, "I acknowledge there are rules, but I'm going to break them anyway."
In the current, prevailing Internet culture, exposing an anonymous writer's identity exposes someone who may be cowardly, but who can claim he hasn't broken any rules. However, exposing someone who agrees rules exist but still violates them is an entirely different matter. That person is not only cowardly, but dishonest.
Rules, as we've seen since Moses, don't change people. But they do make them accountable. This is the difference between a postmodern worldview in which anything goes – including not identifying oneself – and a Christian worldview in which rules matter, and those who break them are deemed to have done something wrong.
There may be hope for reversing this Internet equivalent of drive-by shooting. The Times' own ethical standards appear to address the matter from a Christian worldview, rather than from the postmodern anything-goes approach.
In part, the Times' policy holds that its writers, "….. are committed to informing readers as completely as possible; the use of anonymous sources compromises this important value…… When we use anonymous sources, it should be to convey important information to our readers. We should not use such sources to publish material that is trivial, obvious or self-serving…… Sources should never be permitted to use the shield of anonymity to voice speculation or to make ad hominem attacks……Fabrication of any type is unacceptable. We do not create composite characters. We do not use pseudonyms."
Anonymity is most insidious when used by a writer to conceal his own identity to make accusations or advance views he obviously isn't proud or willing to associate his name with.
Mainstream journalism is fraught with credibility problems. It's no secret that the vast majority of so-called "news" reporters and editors are left-leaning, and that what works its way into print and broadcasts is seriously tainted by a godless, secular humanism that fully embraces left-wing ideology. The Internet can be – and indeed has been – an alternative to such biased reporting. But by adopting the worst ethical transgressions of the Internet, the mainline press only aggravates its
problem. It doesn't correct it.
Perhaps in the world of journalism there are some sort of standards, but free speech carries no such restrictions. The law has established that a speaker cannot slander, cannot disturb the peace, etc., but there is no requirement that a person must identify himself before expressing an opinion. An idiot is an idiot, whether anonymous or not. A thoughful, reasoned opinion is no less worthy of consideration because it is anonymous. We who offer our opinions on the internet are not journalists. Even if we were, what good are the standards, given the current state of left wing politics disguised as the mainstream media? Of course there is egregious profanity and personal attacks on the internet. Is there less profanity on the average Saturday night sitcom? Are the evening news or the Sunday shows lacking personal attacks? So what if the people involved are identified?
Response to comments on my anonymous drive by column on Intellectual Conservative 4/27/06 RE: Rich Sherlock’s comments. It’s a bit painful to hear such foolishness and unintelligent comments on a web site that goes by the name, “Intellectual Conservative.” Mr. Sherlock is at once shallow and illogical. Shallow because his premise is also his conclusion. Illogical because his premise doesn’t lead to his conclusion. Allow me… RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “Perhaps in the world of journalism there are some sort of standards, but free speech carries no such restrictions. The law has established that a speaker cannot slander, cannot disturb the peace, etc…” Speaking simultaneously out of both sides of his mouth, Mr. Sherlock insists there are “no such restrictions” yet admits “the law has established” restrictions. So much for consistency in thought. This probably explains the rest of Mr. Sherlock’s incoherency. RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “… but there is no requirement that a person must identify himself before expressing an opinion.” Mr. Sherlock attacks a straw man. Nowhere in my column do I propose a law, or claim one exists. RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “An idiot is an idiot, whether anonymous or not.” A non sequitur. And a banana is a banana. So? RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “A thoughful, reasoned opinion is no less worthy of consideration because it is anonymous.” Certainly it is. Mr. Sherlock argues against the obvious. If a known thief proclaims, “There are no thieves here” his words are obviously less worthy of consideration. Considering the source is integral to evaluating veracity. RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “We who offer our opinions on the internet are not journalists.” Another non sequitur. RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “Even if we were, what good are the standards, given the current state of left wing politics disguised as the mainstream media?” This disingenuous argument is absurd on the face of it. The “everybody’s doing it” excuse didn’t fly when a young Mr. Sherlock tried it with his mother. Why does he think it’s ascended to the heights of respectability now? RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “Of course there is egregious profanity and personal attacks on the internet. Is there less profanity on the average Saturday night sitcom?” Ditto, the above. Just because the level of discourse has sunken elsewhere, it is not a valid argument for everyone abandoning reason and respectability. And people wonder why the culture continues its downward spiral. Geeze. Mr. Sherlock’s apparently delighted to jump aboard the train to Hell. RICH SHERLOCK WROTE: “Are the evening news or the Sunday shows lacking personal attacks? So what if the people involved are identified?” Clearly, Mr. Sherlock is utterly incapable of recognizing the obvious. Which raises the very pertinent question: Is “Rich Sherlock” really his name? Perhaps it’s understandable if it’s not really his name. He probably wouldn’t want his name associated with such nonsense, illogic and foolishness. Game, set, match. At your service in Christ (His real name) Mark Landsbaum (my real name)
As usual it's a mixed bag. A tradeoff. Anonymous posts encourge dishonesty and ad hominem attacks. But intelligent readers can take into consideration the anonymous nature of a post, and thus give less credence to it. OTOH, anonymous posts encourage the expression of politically dangerous opinions. I'm sure there are many political dissidents around the world who are grateful for the internet's anonymity. Do we discard the internet's anonymity? That cure may be worse than the disease.
We know the names of MSM journalists, we have their pictures, we often know the name of their spouse, the name of their children, the name of the school they go to and so on, anyway you get the idea, MSM journalists are the exact opposite of being anonymous. Does that stop them from making up stuff as they do at the New York Times? Dan Rather was everything but anonymous, he was known accross the planet , did that keep him from participating in a forgery ? I understand and agree anonimity does cause some problems on the internet, I think people who misbehave should have their comment deleted and be banned. I also believe that the brainwashing that makes a person believe Bush and Cheney are terrorists or "bigger" terrorists and that Saddam or Che Guevara are heores is the problem here. or is a much bigger problem than anonimity. If it weren't for anonymous comments on the internet, we would not know so many people have been brainwashed and/or are insane. Anonymous comments gives us an opportunity to see what ugliness is going on inside the head of regular people who, in person pretend to be normal. Now that we know there is a problem, we can fight it. And I personnaly use a few aliases because last year a lefy-extremist was following me from site to site, harassing me, and he eventually managed to send me a " denial of service " attack.
Okay let me see if I got this straight. In an age where Americans are increasingly wary of reprisals and/or Big Brother, and in a climate that is arguably the most "Conservative" in U.S. history, anything that may puncture your bulletproof armor is considered a drive by, unless you have a copy of the author's birth certificate. And anyone who may not march in lockstep to the Christian drum is a cowardly thug / terrorist / secular humanist that fully embraces left-wing ideology. Okey doke, just wanted to make sure! Thanks, Donald K. (P.S. I think the Kryps and Bloods got the idea from those Jesus Fish!)
The article is flawed on it’s premise: the Internet (as a WHOLE) is NOT the new Newspaper.
Internet News sites are the new Newspaper.
Internet game websites are the new Arcade.
Internet video downloads are the new TV.
Internet gossip sites are the new Tabloids.
Internet Blogs are the new family flyers, chain letters, and xeroxes posted on telephone poles.
You cannot hold the entire Internet up to Journalistic standards.
You SHOULD hold news websites up to Journalistic standards, but firing a journalist for blog or discussion group posts is like firing him for what he says to his friends in a public bar.
Mr. Landsbaum’s hysterical rejoinder masquerades as logical analysis. Mr. Landsbaum changes my words as he attempts to refute me, i.e. restrictions, standards, laws. These words do not mean the same things. Journalists are held to standards dictated by their profession. Individuals are prevented from violating the law as they engage in free speech. Both the law and the dictates of a profession can impose restrictions. Try not to substitute words, sir.
So as we re-read my comment, “There is no requirement that a person identify himself before expressing an opinion,” does anyone really think that I am referring to some sort of law? Apparently, Mr. Landsbaum does.
In the context of usage my meaning is clear enough. When I as a private citizen engage in free speech, I am not required to accede to journalistic standards. I can freely engage in this free speech anonymously, if I choose. Thinking human beings are fully capable of determining the merit of my ideas based on those ideas alone. I am encumbered only by censure imposed by them (i.e., Mr. Landsbaum’s diatribe), or the penalty of law if I slander or defame.
The rest of Mr. Landsbaum’s post is made up of silly metaphors and ad hominem attacks. I simply pointed out that internet postings are no different than what happens all over society. I did not lend a stamp of approval by making this observation.
I note with dismay that Mr. Landsbaum’s post ends with a reference to Christ, as if he is motivated by Christian love in his misrepresentation of my words. Since it appears that we are brothers in the faith once handed down to the saints, I would ask that he extend due honor to those who disagree with him.