I’ve been frequently reading blogs and diaries from people all over the internet who either support a particular candidate or decide to pick a candidate and do all in their power to bismirch his or her name. For example, about a month ago I blogged about a particular writer who seems to have a thing for Deval Patrick. It’s almost as if he had a political crush on Deval, yet was spurned at a question and answer session. I can only imagine Deval going person to person, talking with people who were watching the speech Deval just finished and taking pictures with him. Then, right as the certain someone went up and was about to say “Hello, Mr. Patrick,” Deval was whisked away for the next big event.
However, that’s probably wishful thinking. There’s something a tad bit more likely: many of these anonymous writers enjoy their anonymity because it offers them a unique opportunity to be part of a campaign, yet not tell anyone about that online. Quite frankly, I’ve come to believe that many people who aren’t open about who they are, yet quickly smear candidates or don’t seem open minded at all, probably work for campaigns. Campaigns read the blogs (I have logs to prove it), they know hundreds of thousands read them too and they certianly know the blogosphere is a new and powerful tool in campaigns. Heck, Deval Patrick started his own blog!
I can’t point out the true purpose of this diary. Perhaps it’s just a rant on a problem that can’t be solved? I’d never want to take away the ability for people to write anonymously. For some, it’s a necessity. For others, they probably wouldn’t write if not for the internet being anonymous.
However, I for one would never truly trust a writer on any blog unless I knew whether or not they were involved in a campaign and to the extent to which they were involved. Furthermore, I’d never trust a writer who seems so one-sided that it almost borders on an episode of Looney Toons – yet leaves the level of their support for particular candidates ambiguous. I guess, at the most basic level, people should take Mulder’s cue and “trust no one.” At least until they offer some links to prove it.
It’s why I’ve always held the Federalist Papers in very low esteem.
It’s true. To this day we still have no idea who wrote the Federalist Papers. It’s a mystery that may never be solved.
You hold the Federalist papers, documents outlining the basis for the democracy that would light the world for the next 200 years, in low esteem? Because they were anonymous? Bearing in mind they were anonymous because if the British found out who was writing them, they’d be hanged for treason? Come on.
I think the anonymous author is being snarky. Obviously the Federalist papers are important, anonymous or not.
<
p>
One comment, though, is that I think you have your timelines mixed up. Federalist #1 was printed in 1787. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. They were documents that urged the ratification of the Constitution, not independence from Britian.
What I meant was that, prior to the drafting of the Constitution, you can see it all coming together in the Federalist papers in their urging a form of government, based in no small part on John Locke’s theories of government, that include checks and balances.
<
p>
Maybe he was being snarky. I have a blind spot for internet sarcasm that you could park a bus in.
Just because someone is anonymous/pseudonymous doesn’t mean they’re not credible, or that their point of view is worthless, or that they’re not worth reading. What it does mean is simply that you don’t know who they are, and you need to remember that.
<
p>
People develop a track record online, and you get to know something about them through that. If they reveal more about themselves, you can use all of that. If they don’t, the danger is to fall into thinking that you know more than they’re letting on. As long as you avoid that trap, you can lend them exactly the level of credibility they deserve based on what they write and what you do know.
<
p>
For example, if someone doesn’t say whether or not they’re working for a campaign, and doesn’t reveal their real identity, then think, “what if they were working for a campaign?” If that would affect the credibility of what they write, just pretend that they do and read their posts with that assumption in mind.
<
p>
I sometimes think Ernie Boch III and John Galway are the same person, with two accounts, playing them in tandem (either as point-counterpoint, or reinforcing each other, but with the same voice). I don’t know whether they are. But to the extend that it would affect how I judge what they say, I just read them as if they are the same person now, because I don’t know. In other words, when they comment, I read those comments as one person saying something, not as two.
John Galway,… really…
Who cares where people come from? Everyone is bias in one way or another. I can read through the bullcrap. I can honestly say I am not associated with any campaign. But if I was, big deal. My opinion is my opinion.
Lighten up!
If Publius is Alexander Hamilton or some other dude? I mean, Publius became an entity with his own credibility.
Let’s start a revolution, change the world, and make Massachusetts a better place to live – one anonymous person at a time.
<
p>
I think we are onto something here!
Think about this. Imagine reading someone commenting on politics. The person is anonymous. You don’t know anything about him. How do you judge his posts? By their merits and the ideas within them.
<
p>
Now imagine if your local pizza delivery boy wrote those very same comments. How would people judge them? Many would dismiss his positions because he’s a local pizza delivery boy. And what if that person had been convicted of a crime ten years ago. He would be even less credible because of it.
<
p>
Anonymity gives the ideas the most importance, and that is what counts. In many ways, it is a return to the roots of our country — do you think that the average citizen knew the personal details of the lives of our founding fathers?
I think bringing the founding fathers into this is a bit much – but since you brought them up.
<
p>
1. Their names were known.
<
p>
2. What impact would the Declaration of Independence had if it was signed ANONYMOUS?
OK, point taken. But I still think that back then, it was more about the issues and less about the personalities because less was known about people then. I’d venture to guess that many people who voted for George Washington never even saw a picture of him.
<
p>
I’m surprised at how many people don’t consider what a candidate will do in office, but will instead vote on his smile, his ability to speak, his hairdo.
Woah there. We have to understand different documents in different contexts. Blogs are similar to the pamphlets of the 1760s than the Declaration of Indpendence. In pamphlets, the idea was to create propoganda, spread news, discuss issues, gossip etc. The Declaration of Independence was a totally different sort of document establishing our Independence. Let’s not confuse what kind of forum we are.
Like I said, one of the best aspects about the internet is being anonymous. However, I still think it’s important to reveal specific information about oneself when posting, such as campaign allegiance, especially whether or not one works for a campaign and to what extent they work for it.
<
p>
I guess I was just giving voice to an issue that has frustrated me as of late. I’m sick of people slamming libelous accusations against candidates and not taking any risk whatsoever in doing that. There’s no risk to reputation, people can just create a new username. There’s no risk to anything. Yet, some people have a tendency to believe whatever is written. If it sounds good, it must be true.
There is no “right” answer here. Sometimes speech has to be anonymous, or it will be surpressed. The First Amendment protects the right to anonymous political speech, and as other posters have noted, anonymous speech has a long and honorable tradition in our history.
<
p>
In other cases, this significance of a statement depends entirely on who is saying it–such as signing the Declaration of Independence, or the State of the Union Address.
<
p>
Sometimes the audience cannot independently know the truth of a statement, so they rely in part on the credibility of the speaker (if Mike Dukakis says so, I believe it, but if Karl Rove says the same thing, I don’t, etc. etc. . . . ). As to matters of fact, the appeal to the authority of a speaker should be less important than whether the fact can be verified, if it can be verified at all. But sometimes verification is difficult, so we rely on the reputation of the speaker as a substitute.
<
p>
In matters of opinion, does it really matter who the speaker is, if they can marshall facts and arguments effectively? If I can make a convincing argument that Deval Patrick erred by joining the Ameriquest Board, or that Tom Reilly is a mediocre Attorney General, why does in matter who I am, or whom I support? If your view is that you support candidate Z, so you will only listen to other Candidate Z supporters, well, what kind of thinking is that?
<
p>
And, hey, its just a blog.
<
p>
Whew. I feel better now.
For fifty bucks, I’ll tell you who Publius was!
<
p>
Seriously, when I began blogging, I deliberately chose a persona from that era – William Cobbett, ex-soldier and rabble rouser, who chose to write under the name Peter Porcupine. Cobbett, in his day, was the most widely read author in North America – and other people in Philadelphia didn’t know exactly who he was, and argued about it. Cobbett’s belief was that the IDEA was paramount, and should stand or fall on its own merits, independent of personality, religion, class, gender, and all the other markers used to decide if an idea was ‘worthy’ of consideration. That attitude was my goal in blogging – to be a disembodied intellect. It’s no accident that at the beginning of the last great change in public communication befoe the internet, the pamphlet, most writers did use a nom de plume (or guerre).
<
p>
I absolutely agree about building up a ‘track record’ – but Charley and Ernie Boch both have, in their own way. Until the Globe article, I hadn’t a clue who Charley was – but exchanged emails with him anyway, phantom to phantasm.
<
p>
Obvious bias will always out (did I ever mention I backed Kerry Healey?) and I wouldn’t be overly concerned with who’s working on what campaign. Instead, pay attention to the words and the ideas because in the final analysis they are the only things that count.
Is this the same William Cobbett who while in America, wrote “diatribes against American democracy” (quoted from the BBC), was sued for libel, ruined financially and moved back to England?
<
p>
Interesting choice.
<
p>
I do agree, we should seperate the idea from the person, but not at the expense of accountability.
Actually, I crossed the Atlantic 4 times, usually one step ahead of the baliff, in an era when most lived and died within a mile of where they were born.
<
p>
I was fined and jailed by both the British AND the Americans for my political writings – both sides wanted me hushed up.
<
p>
I fled England for America via Paris after exposing embezzling in my military platoon, was bankrupted by Jefferson for attacking his Francophilia after my experiences there during The Terror and went back to England, returned to America once again, once again had to flee back to England from lawsuits for slander, and died a Member of Parilament in the country that had confined me to Newgate for writing against flogging in the Army.
<
p>
I believe I managed to cover everybody with my diatribes.
Under each and every comment there’s an opportunity for each and every one of us to RATE that comment. When you click on a user’s name you can go to that users “ratings” page and see what sorts of ratings that user has gotten (and what ratings that user has given others).
<
p>
In a community such as this, those of us who have a vested interest in seeing it maintain its integrity can actively work towards that purpose. We can rate good (and bad) comments and hopefully the wheat will separate from the chaff and the cream will rise to the top.
<
p>
No one, named or pseudo-named, should get a free pass of instant credibility. Online or in person, trust and credibility are earned.
If we could only get mothers to give their children names like “Maverickdem” and “theoryhead”, then what would the anonymous posters do? Hmmmmmm?
What can I say, my folks thought of it at Woodstock!
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showDiary.do?diaryId=2137#10751