A Lesson in Pseudonymity and Anonymity

by: emptywheel

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 14:42:01 PM EDT

That's a reality that many journalists--whose public speech is usually studiously apolitical and who get paid (however inadequately) for that speech--don't appreciate. Political speech in this country is not "free" speech; it often comes with real world consequences. And that, my dear journalist friends, is the reason why most bloggers who post pseudonymously do so--to protect their livelihood, all the while engaging in the political speech enshrined in our Constitution and critical to the healthy functioning of our democracy.

But back to the vocabulary. Someone posting "anonymously" has no name--and no stable online identity. Posting anonymously allows someone to engage in unproductive behavior with no consequences with regards to their reputation. (Though, for the record, in cases of libel or trademark infringement, plenty of "anonymous" and "pseudonymous" commenters have been traced by IP addresses.) Whereas someone who has a stable identity over time--I've been using and acquiring an online reputation under the pseudonym "emptywheel" for five years, which is one of the reasons I'm reluctant to lose it--cannot do so. In the (largely) unpaid world of blogging, the only currency we've got is our reputation. For many of us who have day jobs in addition to our blogging, working with a pseudonym (or "assumed name," as Demas calls it) allows us to be both citizens and breadwinners.

Pseudonymity is an odd currency for those unfamiliar with blog culture (I just got to explain the concept to a conference of lawyers, which was fun!). New visitors to blogs often don't appreciate that those bloggers--under whatever name--who prove reliable and factually based over time accrue reputation. But that is how regular readers of blogs separate the good from the bad on blogs, and know whom to trust.

Now, for the record, I don't particularly think Susan Demas is a wanker, today or any day. I've lauded her work on my own blog, as one of those doing what so few journalists are doing--providing unbiased, critical political coverage. Though I would certainly object to some of her claims about journalism:

[Blogs] don't have to adhere to journalistic standards, like interviewing both sides in an issue and not relying on anonymous sources. Many blogs commit character assassination - take the rumors of Sen. John Kerry's infidelity in 2004. Anonymous bloggers don't have to worry about libel suits. We in the unholy MSM do.

And two more points about blogs. First, most bloggers wouldn't consider Drudge a blog, though he surely has his reputation and plenty of journalists rely on him to amplify their work (see, for example, the Politico). He's a gossip columnist, just the same as gossip columnist that appears in a newspaper.

And second, there is a difference between an outlet repeating the content of a Mark Brewer press release--without identifying that the content came from Brewer--and posting a video of Brewer making political points. The former occurs all too frequently in journalism with no transparency to that fact; with the latter, the reader at least sees transparently what she's getting.

Which gets to where we ought to get with this flap--with more mature understanding on both sides. I think most bloggers would agree with the bulk of Demas' column. In particular, bloggers, like Demas, think journalism is not doing an adequate job educating citizens about their government. Blogs are not just "entertainment." They are a way for citizens to take that job into their own hands. The quality on blogs varies, I'll grant you that. But at their best, they're fulfilling the same goals that Demas would like to see filled.