Jeff Jarvis compares an instance of sock-puppetry by an employee of the Politico (and the Politico’s blase attitude about it) with the kerfuffle noted in today’s New York Times over whether Mayhill Fowler should have identified herself when asking Bill Clinton for a reaction to Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair piece on the former president. In the comments to his post, Jarvis goes a bit further on questions of identity on the Internet, declaring: “If you’re a whistleblower or a Chinese or Iranian blogger, I understand. Anybody else: You’re chickenshit.”
The history of this blog is instructive as to both sides of the coin. Our host, Jeff Goldstein, was one of those who was subjected to — and helped expose — the now-infamous sock-puppetry of author and Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald. On the other hand, regular site visitors know that Jeff’s open identity has also made him the target of libel and creepy threats against his young son by a disturbed person who shall remain nameless. It is not just whistleblowers or the oppressed who stand to lose something by transparency. Indeed, another commenter responding to Jarvis notes that someone sock-puppeted his own name and web address to leave “ignorant” comments at other sites; it seems to me that people like Jarvis are equally susceptible to that sort of abuse.
I blog under my first name, but it is not all that difficult to discover who I am. I avoid blogging about topics in which I might be deemed to have an interest beyond that of any other member of the public. My assumption is that what I guest-post here rises or falls on the strength of the content and the sources cited.
As for the Fowler-Clinton kerfuffle, I think most of those who have commented on it miss the point. For example, in the NYT piece:
“This makes it very difficult for the rest of us to do our jobs,†Jonathan Alter, a columnist and political reporter for Newsweek, said in an interview. “If you don’t have trust, you don’t get good stories. If someone comes along and uses deception to shatter that trust, she has hurt the very cause of a free flow of public information that she claims she wants to assist.â€Â
But the situation here was that Fowler asked Clinton a question in a crowd after a campaign event. No relationship of trust is established. Bill Clinton — a most public figure — said something in public to a member of the public. Clinton had a variation on former Sen. George Allen’s “macaca moment.” If such incidents cause public figures to be more circumspect in public, it might actually encourage, rather than discourage, such figures to speak to people in a journalistic mode where ground rules are established. That might not be a good thing from the standpoint of citizen-journalism or even public debate, but it does not necessarily harm traditional journalism.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
no one here but us chickens
it’s just I don’t want to get truthed and reconciliated is all
Here here, Karl.
Excellent job. Frankly, I my jaw drops at the very idea that there was something untoward about this reporter recording that very public exchange. If they had been in Clinton’s backyard eating some ribs, and Clinton had been talking some trash, not knowing his neighbor was a reporter….now that would have been kind of shitty.
Oh, I would bust Bill Clinton (or other public figure, or even a non-public figure) for talking trash outside of any promised confidence.
Why the exception for remarks made in company, Lisa?
If he’s at my barbecue, or invited to a party barbeque, and talks trash around decent people, that’s HIS deal. What you say is what you say. IF it’s not said in confidence, it’s not said in confidence.
Clinton had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to his remarks. He wouldn’t at a barbeque, either, unless he pulled some guest aside and said “just between you, me and the fencepost”, etc. There’s something called discretion, and it was Bill’s job to exert it, not to presume others would do it for him.
I like having an internet handle. I think it is equitable to “branding” more than anything else, because, as Karl pointed out, anonymity only extends as far as someone doesn’t take the trouble to find out who you are.
However…
Some stories/some subjects/some discussions here on the web absolutely can transcend their original venues.
Rathergate at LGF comes to mind.
Anyway, I sign my name if I think it’s important.. Or if I’ve decided, against my personal rules of decorum and common good manners, to do something as pointless as cuss somebody on the internet. The act is still juvenile but at least I own it. *chuckle*
Public to public exchanges, especially like the one between the First Horndog and the reporter, have no privelige on either side.
Totally off topic here: anybody else having a problem with Firefox today?
Actually, I think Bill Clinton was perfectly justified in what he said about DeeDee’s husband.
Voldemort reads this blog? (OK, sorry.)
Firefox (2.0.0.14) works for me.
Tmj:
Not so much today as yesterday. Had a hard time getting into my yahoo account, among others, slow load time, etc.
After Bill Clinton said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”, I stopped listening to anything he said.
In the age of the “iPhone”, and other similar devices, nothing can be considered “off the record”.
Four words:
Glenn Greenwald
Rick Ellensburg
How soon they forget.
If I said something to what I thought was a civilian, and it turned out to be a reporter and got broadcast, I would be wary of speaking candidly to civilians, not obvious reporters like Mr. Alder. I think the fact Mr. Alder is too stupid to realize something this obvious is what is making his job so difficult.
Can I mention how it irks me that a serious publication would contact Jane Hamsher to discuss ethics? Ugh.
“Had a hard time getting into my yahoo account, among others, slow load time, etc.”
Firefox tends to eat memory the longer it runs. I usually just kill it task manager and restart.
“Some stories/some subjects/some discussions here on the web absolutely can transcend their original venues.
Rathergate at LGF comes to mind. ”
First: Should have said “Rathergate at Free Republic and later LGF come to mind”…Second, I meant that when a group finds itself chasing facts, with concrete, real world implications, it needs to step up and stop being a bunch of nicknames chasing personal gratification and become individuals standing to to face the challenge.
Just saying. Maybe I have missed the point.
– I don’t know. For some reason I can’t put my finger on I have a little trouble getting dewy eyed over anything that the Left media does to one of their own. And with Bill, they don’t even have to do the second part of the biased coverage ploy, “out of context”. Ole Bill always says it straight up, and off the wall, so they don’t have to resort to that like they do with Conservatives.
good grief MayBee, you put one Senator in blackface and you’re tarred for life?
TmjUtah,
Your point on RatherGate is well-taken, but allow me to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment.
Charles Johnson’s famous animated GIF stands on its own, raerdless of who Charles Johnson is. Moreover, the points about typography in general — superscripts, kerning, the capabilities of standard typewriters of the period — all rise on their own merit, regardless of the speaker (though Johnson certainly has relevant experience to bear on the subject also).
That being said, once Johnson and others (Bill Ardolino, iirc) started contacting experts and such, the bloggers’ names would likely come out anyway.
Another way to look at it is that anonymous bloggers with cited sources may be no better or no worse than named journalists with anonymous sources. In the first instance, the sources themselves can be checked.
Karl –
Excellent post, and excellent point in #17; facts do indeed transcend the messengers, or something like that.
I apologize for my inability to communicate; while such is not a new thing in any way, it seems to be getting worse lately.
My Firefox seems to be back on an even keel. Would that I was in the same state.
Next week brings $4.30 fuel and possible employment changes within my company. And a patent impossibility of turning on a radio or computer and not hearing of the coming of the Chosen One and the new end of history.
Off to build a fence.
B Moe, exactly. The wariness should extend to public remarks made to strangers, not to self-identifying members of the press. It’s a courtesy to declaim who you are when speaking to someone. I do it. But the responsibility for one’s own remarks belongs with one’s self.
And I agree with Maybee that Dee Dee’s husband didn’t have anything said about HIM that he didn’t deserve to have said. Whatever the practicalities of having said something like that and having it broadcast might be, I don’t think he was wrong in essentials.
Yeah, it’s kinda ironic that Fowler is correct in identifying Purdum’s piece as a “hatchet job.” There aere plenty of documented criticisms to be had of Clinton’s post-residency; I’ve written a few myself. But the VF piece is mostly anonymous former staffers, with Purdum admitting upfront it’s smoke and not fire.
I would like to further add that Johnathan Alter is completely in the tank for Obama, has admitted publicly that he preferred him over Clinton, and appears regularly on Olbermann’s Rant-O-Rama. That, more than anything, would keep many sources from trusting him.
Would be my guess at least.
TmjUtah,
No apology needed. And I’m the one who has “raerdless” in my response.
In light of Eason Jordan’s behavior regarding Saddam Hussein, I wonder if these guys are more interested in getting access or getting the story. I’m a little tired of this “Deep Background” nonsense regarding unsourced reporting and protection of access. Not that that has anything at all to do with Clinton. Everything he says to anybody has to be assumed to be in the public domain, and he’s grown up enough to know it. Alter, not so much. And, Jonathan, if your job was so hard to do there wouldn’t be so many fucking morons doing it.
MayBee,
That Alter is in the tank for Obama would be one of the more recent of a multitutde of reasons not to trust what he writes. But I don’t know that he’s burned any sources; I’ll give him that much.
Karl- do you know if Mr. These-are-distractions-from-real-issues said anything against Purdum and Vanity Fair’s old kind of politics? Something like, I do not think that has any place in our political discourse. Or that it is perhaps low class to slam the spouse of a candidate?
My guess is that he was just bummed he didn’t have any Clinton divorce records to get unsealed.
Aha! Good point, Karl.
That is very much an issue beyond Iraq, though to be scrupulously fair, even journos trying to be fair have to wrestle with the issue. After all, you often have to have some access to get any story. In Jordan’s case the problem was that he had the story, but the restriction was self-imposed (ostensibly to protect the lives of locals who worked with CNN).
What’s going on in this kerfuffle — as Jarvis notes — is an artifact of the hubris and clubbiness of people like Alter. How dare some plebe ask Clinton a question in public and then broad cast the answer? Doesn’t she know you must ask Clinton’s permission?
MayBee,
AFAIK, Obama had bupkis to say about the Purdum piece, though we know he doesn’t want people reporting on his spouse. That’s “unacceptable.”
The woman, Mayhill Fowler, who calls herself a citizen journalist, wore no credential around her neck and did not identify herself, her intentions or her affiliation as an unpaid contributor to Off the Bus, a section of The Huffington Post.
I think it’s pretty ironic the Mediacrats have their knickers in bunch over this and hardly a sniff at Huffington Post’s more egregious slimejobs most recently in the form of giving credentials to Joe Biden’s Iowa Communications director to be there when the Huffington credentialed former Biden Office manager asked John McCain if was true he called his wife a cunt at an event.
Insta asked at the time
reminder link
I thought the question was bullshit only because the questioner referred to the article as a “hatchet job”. That is for the reader to decide. Obviously a leading question meant to get a certain response. It’s what I hate about reporters.
Topsecretk9, bigbooner
When the MSM does it, it’s undercover investigative work.
The ‘in-crowd’ has become a lot bigger. And there is YouTube.
Stay classy, everyone. Stay sober. And always watch your tongue,
I comment under my real name.
What?
Actually, I have commented under my real name at PW (actually, at the original Celluloid Wisdom) but after a brief flurry of cyberstalking, I went pseud. It’s not as if I’m anyone important, after all, or that I hold any sway, or want to. Jeff knows my name, or would if it was important enough to remember. The crew over at Obsidian Wings knows my name, because I used to post over there, as does Moe Lane. I think that’s quite enough.
I just don’t want to have to bring physical or legal force to bear every time some idiot thinks that doing battle with me, personally, somehow does something to the validity of my opinions. I mean, we could do trial by combat with those who disagree with us, but I’d prefer not to have the trial by combat start without my knowledge, or be initiated against my family. Given Jeff’s experiences over the last couple of years, I think that POV is completely justified.
And, again, I just do commenting, so I’m a complete nobody.
My family calls me JD. My drivers license has JD on it. My friends call me JD. I am a bigger nobody than Slarti, so I have no worries.
I choose not to bother with trying to hide who I am. Since I own the domains my website is on, anyone could find out anything they wanted to about me anyway. I’ve been trolled but as far as I know never stalked (NRA life membership? What could that possibly have to do with anything?).
My view is that those using anonymity for legitimate purposes ought to know going in that it isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and be prepared for the chance that events may lead to being outed.
Trolls ought to know that even with phony e-mail addresses and spoofed IP addresses, anyone sufficiently motivated can find out who they are; the trick is to avoid motivating anyone sufficiently.
Oh, sure. Why, back when I had a blog, I was being trolled by JadeGold. Somehow the ridiculous fucker failed to understand that even if he changed his name, I still knew who he was.
Interesting, what you can learn about people who comment from their work IPs. In his case, I was able to get a yearbook picture, which is just about what it took to stop him from insisting that I bribed China to get my girls. Plus, I think I told him I’d complain to his employer and his employer’s webmaster that he was being abusive.
Which is another reason I don’t blog anymore: I don’t want to be accessing that kind of informatiom.
My handle is directly related to my inability to remember usernames and passwords and a company IT security policy that would refresh your profile should you call the helpdesk and request a password…any password. So, way back when, when I was a sysadmin my desktop would get refreshed about once per week. So I’d lose my cookies. I posted here under my own name and one or two other aliases before Jeff took his first sabbatical, but by the time he took his second I had settled into this one.
I blog under a different name, another nickname, one my kids gave me. It’s a long story, but of the nine people who read my blog last week, four are related to me, one was me messing wth my template and one was some poor sucker doing a book report on Kingsley Amis’ “The Old Devils”, (God I hope he uses my review) so I’m not really all that peudonymous.
I do not believe in any “right to privacy”. There just isn’t one, that’s what manners are for. It is up to the individual to keep his or her information confidential, if they don’t it’s too bad. Bill Clinton said something out loud that he shouldn’t have. He didn’t say it to his lawyer, doctor or Priest during Penance. It wasn’t written in a letter and sent through the mail, and even then it’s only private if kept private, just ask Thomas Jefferson.
[…] remember reading a post you wrote back in June about Politico employees going into comment sections and engaging in sock puppetry. I don’t […]