Anonymity

[Johnny Dangerously]

Inspired by sidebar on another thread ...

If you value the anonymity most user names here provide, for all of the reasons that have been stated often here, is it a contradiction if you also think newspapers should rarely or never use unnamed sources? I realize they are not perfect parallels, but are you (or your editors) expecting something from potential whistleblowers and other sources that you wouldn't do here? I know polluting a river isn't the same as the kinds of things we discuss about our bosses and CEOs (and mundane B.S.), but is there a double standard within you about anonymity and its value in encouraging truthfulness?

I'm not accusing or looking to start something other than a discussion. I have some thoughts, having outed myself on here more than once. In fact, family members wonder if I've hurt my six-month job search by posting openly about what went down at my last paper. So, this is a topic I've thought about a lot lately.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I know why I need to maintain anonymity.

Using an anonymous source, though? There are so many variables that we, as reporters and editors are not privy to. Usage is fraught with peril. Different can of worms, I think.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Good points, and no surprise. I just thought this would be a place for discussion about anonymity and allow the Miami Herald thread to get back on topic out of respect to those folks.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Good points, and no surprise. I just thought this would be a place for discussion about anonymity and allow the Miami Herald thread to get back on topic out of respect to those folks.

And, that's why you are one of the good'ns

 

[Shaggy]

Newspapers should be held to higher standards than message boards.

 

[mustangj17]

Agreed. And most of us being journalists and in the industry we have much more credibility then the message board crazies.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Good points, and no surprise. I just thought this would be a place for discussion about anonymity and allow the Miami Herald thread to get back on topic out of respect to those folks.

Good call...

 

[Andy _ Kent]

Maybe I'm a little naive and will find out the hard way that posting under my real name could have some bad consequences, but since I am a full-time freelance writer and for all intents and purposes my own boss, I guess I feel more comfortable on here.

In the interest of full disclosure, when I originally started reading and occasionally posting on here, I did so anonymously because I was employed at a daily paper, so I can understand the reasons why some of you choose to continue posting in that fashion. I'm not going to begrudge anyone for making that decision.

As for me, I guess I feel if I am going to make a strong enough comment about any of the topics on here, I want to be able to do so out in the open so I can't be accused of hiding behind a "handle,", but again, that's me, and so far I haven't paid for anything I have said because I still like to believe that honesty is a valued currency.

 

[RickStain]

I post anonymously for two reasons (no, my name is not really Rick Stain. But that would be cool)

1) Everyone else seemed to be doing it.
2) I work for a small daily but enjoy discussing the larger issues of the industry, and I don't want my modest post reflecting on my opinions.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I just went through the first several pages of members by number of posts and not counting Webby, the person with the most posts who is posting under his real name is Michael Gee, who I'm guessing wishes he had gone the anonymous route when he first registered.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I deleted my posts on anonymity from The Herald thread.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Good points, and no surprise. I just thought this would be a place for discussion about anonymity and allow the Miami Herald thread to get back on topic out of respect to those folks.

Good call...

I realize that many threads spin off into subplots that are an organic part of the discussion, but it seemed like there was enough awkwardness there that it wouldn't hurt to steer things here.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

In a story, credibility is granted to an anonymous source. The editors are saying, we can't tell you who it is, but we know who it is and you can trust the information if you trust us. On a message board, the management doesn't vouch for you, you earn credibility over time by being consistent in the quality of the information you offer and how you treat others. I posted under my real name on the old board for a few months and stopped for several reasons. I do think it gets in the way of the discussion, especially if someone expects the rest of us to pay attention because of who is posting rather than what they actually say.

 

[HorseWhipped]

I guess many of us would like to post under our real names because we believe in free speech and open forums for opinion and debate.

But there are a lot of vindictive bastards in newspaper management.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

In a story, credibility is granted to an anonymous source. The editors are saying, we can't tell you who it is, but we know who it is and you can trust the information if you trust us. On a message board, the management doesn't vouch for you, you earn credibility over time by being consistent in the quality of the information you offer and how you treat others. I posted under my real name on the old board for a few months and stopped for several reasons. I do think it gets in the way of the discussion, especially if someone expects the rest of us to pay attention because of who is posting rather than what they actually say.

It must get boring, being on the money every time.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I guess many of us would like to post under our real names because we believe in free speech and open forums for opinion and debate.

But there are a lot of vindictive bastards in newspaper management.

That's No. 1 with a Kevlar-(and 401K-)piercing bullet.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I agree with every word Frank wrote, but I also know readers don't know who the unnamed source is, and that always leaves room for doubt. That, an editor once told me, is why you should not use such sources. If it's important enough to put out in the world, she said, someone should be willing to put their name to it.

It's a discussion that engages me on several levels, especially as I reevaluate the trail of my September floating around the cut-and-paste world of the Internet and whether it's essentially had a negative effect upon my job search.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I guess many of us would like to post under our real names because we believe in free speech and open forums for opinion and debate.

But there are a lot of vindictive bastards in newspaper management.

And then there are the trolls and ****sticks who take pride in the **** they post behind the cloak of anonymity.

 

[Andy _ Kent]

In a story, credibility is granted to an anonymous source. The editors are saying, we can't tell you who it is, but we know who it is and you can trust the information if you trust us. On a message board, the management doesn't vouch for you, you earn credibility over time by being consistent in the quality of the information you offer and how you treat others. I posted under my real name on the old board for a few months and stopped for several reasons. I do think it gets in the way of the discussion, especially if someone expects the rest of us to pay attention because of who is posting rather than what they actually say.

Fortunately, I don't have that problem because nobody really cares who I am when I post.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I agree with every word Frank wrote, but I also know readers don't know who the unnamed source is, and that always leaves room for doubt. That, an editor once told me, is why you should not use such sources. If it's important enough to put out in the world, she said, someone should be willing to put their name to it.

It's a discussion that engages me on several levels, especially as I reevaluate the trail of my September floating around the cut-and-paste world of the Internet and whether it's essentially had a negative effect upon my job search.

I am NOT a fan of anonymous sources.
Had a coworker use one - who he swore was dead on and close to a breaking, statewide situation. Editors believed the guy and based on "the source's" info we went with a major story - that was 100 percent not even close to correct.
It was embarrassing.