Enabling anonymity
Discussion continues about anonymous comments here. Daniel Okrent, public editor of The New York Times, probably doesn't even know we exist down here. But in his column today (reg. req.) he says:
Since I've been in this job, use of anonymous sources has been the substantive issue raised most often by readers. They challenge the authenticity of quotations. They question the accuracy of the information in the quotations. They believe reporters who invoke unidentified sources are lazy or, far worse, dishonest. As Leonard Wortzel of Atlanta wrote, "Whenever I come across a phrase like 'according to a high-ranking official,' I translate it to mean, 'I, the reporter, will now state my opinion and disquise it as news.'"
This is one of the reasons we gulp a bit at anonymous commenters.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
You may gulp at anonymous commentators. We gulp at some of the "real" commentators. What's in a name???? Whether you use a real name or a fake name, who knows whether you are using your real name or not. People could have several email addresses.
So really this is all ridiculous and pointless.
Anything you read on a blog site is not a verified reference book. If you know the person or know them from posting, you can then be the judge of considering them credible or stupid or just some nut.
Posted on May 8, 2005 10:02 PM
What difference does it make if we are anonymous? It's not like this is the New York Times. It's a BLOG.
I don't want to give out a real email address because I don't want to get spammed.
Posted on May 9, 2005 7:50 PM