Outing and coming out
All of the Deep Throat fond reminiscences aside, newspaper editors don't like anonymity. It gnaws at us. We don't like secrets. We're in the business of telling the news and letting people know where we got it. We've discussed that.
That said, this post by Chewie about Anna in California who was outed by her hometown newspaper is awful.
Anna is a frequent contributor to this blog. Her comments suggest that she's smart, open and thoughtful. She e-mailed me a couple weeks ago asking under what circumstances I would reveal the identity of pseudonymous bloggers in the newspaper. I told her that I couldn't imagine any, and then, I'm embarrassed to say, forgot all about it. I just figured she was planning on writing something about it. Old Stupid didn't think she was asking because she had trouble.
I still can't think of a reasonable circumstance in which we would publish a pseudonymous blogger's identity in the newspaper without his or her permission. I added the word reasonable above because I can conceive of such an instance. If a pseudonymous blogger threatened to shoot up a school on his blog and I knew his name, I would tell police. But aside from criminal activity, I can't.
P.S. Chewie is definitely doing some outstanding citizen journalism these days.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
What were they thinking? And why have they not responded to Anna's questions?
I understand full--well why newspapers want to know who they're talking to but outing without need or purpose... it just seems like sloppy journalism to me.
Posted on June 12, 2005 7:21 PM
what is the deal with the protected anonymity the N&R is embracing with these people? are they in a witness protection program? I really don't understand what the issue is.
Posted on June 12, 2005 8:56 PM
"boo,"
The issue is twofold, IMO. First, the author chooses to be anonymous (and responsible for what he or she writes). Incorporated in that is (in this case), the blogger's specific request that her anonymity be protected or she would choose not to be quoted. The "journalist" who outted her was unethical. He was asked to keep her name out of the article, did not respond to that request, and violated it.
Second, protecting anonymity gets a real journalist more news. Just like journalists respect "off the record" comments and embargoed news, anonymous sources (see: Deep Throat) often have more and more accurate information than is available in public channels. (Yes, some of it is spin...but we're outside the Beltway here.)
I haven't even mentioned the possibility of getting fired at work for expressing your opinions of non-work issues (a woman was fired for having a Kerry bumper sticker). These are all very real issues.
But the bottom line to me is that it's a matter of choice. The blogger/writer chooses to be anonymous and tells the journalists up front. If they choose to use that material, they do so by respecting the source's choice or they choose not to use the material. It's called ethics.
Posted on June 12, 2005 9:29 PM
Assuming they are private citizens, if they wish to be anonymous and they make that wish known, we respect that. They have their own Web sites, and they are easy to get in touch with. There's no obvious reason for the newspaper to publish their names against their wishes.
Posted on June 12, 2005 9:30 PM
I think you're inventing your own comfortable version of ethics here. In my opinion, newspapers (if the N&R still wishes to be considered such online) have to adhere to a single definition of accountability. You're saying that you think anonymous sources are wrong, but at the same time you're acting like bloggers are in a class of their own. They're not. Would you be using Ed Cone's column in your print paper if he used a pseudonym?
Posted on June 12, 2005 10:10 PM
I do think online and newspapers are different. Chewie, for instance, is a pseudonym. But she's not a newspaper columnist. She publishes her own work. It's out there for everyone to see. She's not in the newspaper; we aren't quoting her in the newspaper under her pen name. As far as I know, she's not a source for us, anonymous or otherwise, other than story ideas we get from her Web log, same as anyone else.
Posted on June 13, 2005 6:55 AM
Boo: The other piece of this is that publishing her name and website info was completely optional. She was not quoted in the story. The info was contained in a "rail" that ran with the story. If the editor/reporter on the piece had not wanted to cite a web site without fully identifying the author they had another choice: leave it out of their piece. Simple. Clean.
I have spiked more than my share of good quotes and on-point interviews because someone who is not normally quoted in a newspaper (a "civilian" rather than someone like a politician) didn't want their name connected to it. I don't see this as a whole lot different.
Posted on June 13, 2005 10:56 AM
Mark ... Thanks for explaining that side of it. In Anna's case, I would have to say the newspaper really made a bad call.
Posted on June 13, 2005 11:03 AM
I don't think Anna was very clear about what she wanted. She asked not to be quoted with her full name and she was not quoted. If she didn't want to be associated with the story, she should have said so. Instead she put all sorts of innuendo in blog comments and in PS's. I think she's on very weak ground here assuming that the reporter could follow the subtleties of her identity.
Posted on June 14, 2005 12:04 PM
Regarding "pb"'s statement "She asked not to be quoted with her full name and she was not quoted"
I said "please don't use my last name".
Maybe Chewie could put this more clearly, but I can't.
(and "pb", just curious - which NC are you from, North Carolina or Nevada County?)
Posted on June 14, 2005 10:05 PM