Adult Supervision Required

You may have been following the kerfuffle over at Sonoran Alliance--one of the site's anonymous bloggers decided mess with Chuck Coughlin.  I find the flare up to be interesting because it combines two things that are very dangerous--anonymous blogging and messing with Chuck Coughlin. 

I'll let Chuck take care of himself, but now that the Arizona Blogosphere has developed a hefty following, it's probably time that someone addressed anonymous blogging. 

I can only speak for myself, but I decided on day one that I would include my name, background and contact information in the biography section of Espresso Pundit.  For me, it's been a great move.   I get a lot of tips and feedback from people who know me and want to discuss issues.  I've connected with old friends and eliminated small talk.  Pundit readers know what I'm thinking and feel like they have been discussing issues with me each day.  Oftentimes people whom I haven't seen in months will walk up and start a conversation at the point where my last post ended.  I think that's awesome. 

Writing under my own name also provides a self-regulating effect and that's a good thing too.  My family, friends, pastor, Sunday School Class and clients read this blog.  I choose my words very carefully and while many people will disagree with what I write, most agree that I'm not mean, profane or unfair. If Espresso Pundit was anonymous, I might not be so careful. 

Sure, it's been risky to have my name associated with every post--it's not especially easy to represent clients at the legislature while being openly critical of Governor Napolitano's Administration--but it's been the right choice for me. 

Many bloggers, like Tedski and Sean Noble, have chosen the same model.  Others who chose to use their names seem to have gone by the wayside.  Slade Mead hasn't updated since Christmas and Nathan Sproul has moved on.  

That leaves Sonoran Alliance and Seeing Red AZ in prominent positions and unfortunately most of their bloggers remain anonymous.  DSW founded Sonoran Alliance and I think he does a great job.  I don't fault him for the Coughlin Kerfuffle.  DSW has made his identity known (we covered McCain's acceptance speech live on Channel 12).  DSW and administrators like him are in a tough position.  He started Sonoran Alliance but he doesn't write all the content and I'm sure he doesn't want to look like he's trying to censor authors. 

I'm in a similar situation in the Espresso Pundit comment section.  Most of the commentors provide aliases, but I get to see the underlying email addresses (which are usually false) and more importantly, the IP addresses (which are usually accurate). 

I don't edit the comments (although I can) but I quickly delete any that are vulgar or profane.  Nasty comments are like broken windows, they cause the neighborhood to deteriorate immediatly and shouldn't be tolerated. 

After that, the policy becomes case-by-case.   If someone uses his real name, an email address that I can verify and avoids profanity, his comment is pretty much guaranteed to stay unless it's pretty clear that he's defaming someone who isn't a public figure. 

 As for anonymous comments, I tolerate a great deal of criticism directed at me, and it's obviously OK to criticize the original espresso pundit post to which the comment is attached.  I get frustrated when commentors "hijack the thread" by engaging in a debate with other commentors that goes so far afield of the orginal post that the comment stream is wasted.  Naturally, I'm also frustrated by commentors who either haven't read the post, or make it clear by their response that they didn't understand it. 

Despite my frustrations those posts stay.

One thing I don't tolerate is people who leave comments under different names so that it looks like multiple people share their opinion.  "Commander In Chief" has filed her (yes, CIC is a her) comments under a handful of aliases and lately I've been going into the comments section and changing the new alias to CIC so that the readers aren't confused. 

Even worse, are people who write fake comments under a real person's name.  I don't have a problem with that on Espresso Pundit because it's pretty obvious to commentors that they can't get a way with it.  Ironically, Az Central--which I had presumed was monitored by grown ups--fails to remove obvious forgeries.  So posts by "Russell Pearce" that include the real Sen. Pearce's picture and discuss his "boyfriend" are allowed to remain.  That's unconscionable. 

Finally, I draw the line with anonymous authors who use the comment section as a vehicle to trash someone I've mentioned in the post.  If someone wants to criticize, say, Nathan Sproul, Len Munsil, Kyrsten Sinema, Mary Rose Wilcox or even Chuck Coughlin then they can either leave their real name, or get their own blog.  (And leaving their real name is no guarantee that the comment remains.)

Which brings me back to the anonymous attack on Chuck.  Let me be clear that using a popular blog to attack someone anonymously is one of the lowest forms of cowardice.

The Arizona blogosphere has evolved into a powerful political force and as it matures, those of us who have been active in its formation are going to have to come up with some guidelines to ensure that blogs aren't just a forum for bullies.  I'm open to suggestions about those guidelines, and I hope that the comments policy that I've just laid out will offer a good starting point.  

Comments

[Jim Torgeson]

Thanks! I thought I was the only person that figured out CiC was all over the place.

[Carol]

You'll appreciate this analogy Greg, but I view people who post comments much the same way I came to see my law school class. We learned, after a time, who was blowing hot air and who was offering a nugget of insight worth listening to. When some people spoke up, even if rarely, it was like that old commercial where the whole restaurant stops talking just to listen to one person's investment advice.

Many regular blog readers take mental notes and accord weight to comments accordingly. It is helpful that you exercise some degree of judgement with regard to posts, and that is why you continue to have loyal readership.

[Name:]

Greg, I do appreciate everything you do here, especially letting anonymous people like me post comments, within reason. But don't forget the Anonymous among us can be in an unenviable position as well, because while I'd like to weigh in on the issue of the tax increase proposal or Coughlin's role in it, my comments themselves would have little weight. Unless, or course, I put my name on them, which is a real temptation I have somehow managed not to give in to. Well, now that I think of it, perhaps under my name they'd actually have no weight at all.

[Steve F.]

"So posts by "Russell Pearce" that include the real Sen. Pearce's picture and discuss his "boyfriend" are allowed to remain."

Although I'm a conservative, I have to admit that I laughed out loud at this...

[ron]

I don't think that the blogosphere will ever have the power of the Phoenix 40. Thank goodness.

Unfortunately, the Arizona blogosphere is divided into the left wing and the right wing camps. It is like having a Washington Post and a Washington Times on line written by non-journalists. There isn't a lot of creative energy seeking answers to the issues our community is facing due to lack of serious interaction between the opposing camps on the internet.

I actually liked the attempt by the AZ Republic this past Sunday to get various voices from both sides addressing the state's budget crisis. While most writers were predictable in their writings, there were hints of compromise in the sentences. Burns and Adams both left wiggle room for a tax increase in their statements.

When the blogosphere begins to rival this kind of dialogue, I will accept that it has reached the maturity which Greg aspires to for it.

[Teleprompter in Chief]

Commander in Chief is nothing more than a paid troll part of a troll army bankrolled by the left. The troll army isn’t interested in discussion; they’re paid, full-time political propagandists, and they’re wasting bandwidth to spread their message.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/rules-for-conservative-radicals/

These Obambots are not new, they appeared during the election and they have blinders on when it comes to Barack Obama. They plant hate memes at Republican rallies, and get caught:

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/01/stupid-liberal-tricks.html

Disagree with the President, and you are a racist, sexist, evil repukelikkkan that needs to be shipped off to a FEMA camp, post-haste. Well, at least according to this site:

http://www.theobamaforum.com

The good news here is that others are definitely starting to regret their support for the inexperienced President and stating it outright.

As he continues to make the huge mistakes that have plagued the beginning of his term, expect the Obamatrons like Commander in Chief to get even worse.

[Steve F.]

The Obama Forum is a laugh riot as well.

(Truth be told..many of the posts there are done with tongue firmly in cheek..)

[gayle]

Greg, I've always thought it was important to post my name on everything I write. Even the typo ridden crapola ;-) I get comments that are often just a first name or whathaveyou who attack me personally. I am getting better at dealing wih that.

Yet after th first tea party in Tempe, I was bugged,followed to my car, twitter fake account issues, had a site hacked, got erroneously linked to a well known pollster in a variety of awkward ways--it was very strange.

Nonetheless, I am staying the course. I love to write, I like to read the blogs usually, and I feel we are offering perspective. Accuracy is only as good as the name on the byline.

-Gayle Plato, aka rightwoman

sonoranalliance.com;
therightwoman.blogtownhall.com

[Scott Zalaznik]

Thanks for more great insight! As more and more people catch on to blogging and joining into the conversation the issues you have raised will only continue to grow. As a blogging dabbler the idea of anonymity has had appeal - but you are right. Words are cheap unless you are willing to stand behind them and weighing them before throwing them into the blogosphere is wise discipline.

[Ann]

There are definitely times when anonymity is a good thing. Historically some great writers have used pen names to avoid having their ideas distorted and misperceived based on previously held ideas of the writer’s position or unfair repercussions.

Using the cover of anonymity to throw out speculation, personal attacks, promote personal agendas, and make real downright distortions intended to push the reader over the edge is not the same thing. Playing fast and loose with the truth because there is no one to call you out or hold you accountable in a way that has any effect beyond a hidden snicker or caustic post to a ghost with no name is not honorable, despite the subject at hand. This behavior sullies the credibility of the host site, diminishes future writing of the individual, and is morally just wrong. There is no honor in such behavior; free, uncensored speech does not guarantee truth or honesty.

Commentary can be the same thing. If I post under my full given name, I have absolutely no doubt it would be perceived based on my personal reputation, good or bad, and I would have personal repercussions. Having posted now for over a couple of years, readers, as Carol has said, weigh my words based on their historical connection with my previous writing. That is neither good or bad…it just is. It is for us to choose which way we will play along… limit our post to pen name only understanding and mindful of the limits that puts on our post or go full-throttle, full disclosure, and write away with full accountability under our known name.

[The Klute]

"Commander in Chief is nothing more than a paid troll part of a troll army bankrolled by the left. The troll army isn’t interested in discussion; they’re paid, full-time political propagandists, and they’re wasting bandwidth to spread their message."

Wow, Teleprompter - that's some extra-special paranoid crazy. Obviously, no one on the left feels strongly enough to post about anything: we're all just mercenary shills. You've got our number.

Oh, wait, here's this week's check from the Jew Soros. Better go earn that filthy lucre.

[Dewey]

Klute, you're right, Column InChes is not a troll.

Would it be "trollette"? Or maybe "trollix"?

Some of us who are not at all involved in politics other than as spectators from our living rooms, and every so often from the voting booth, post anonymously (or pseudonymously) because we are living in happy states of political truce in our personal and/or professional lives. In my own workplace, things political are always off the table by mutual consent. That doesn't mean we aren't opinionated as individuals, but just that we're not going to let those opinions spill over and cause problems.

I don't (unfortunately) think all my co-workers are reading your blog every day, but who knows?

(In fact, I think that Klute might be that guy down the hall who keeps loudly arguing with the telephone operator about the proper area code for his "home planet.")

I do agree that it's fun to have these conversations in your comments section, and that commenters earn their own reputations over time.

[The Klute]

Dewey,

I'm not saying neither CiC or even myself are not trolls (if we're defining "troll" as someone who posts at a website expressing views different then the website's overall philosophy) - I'm saying it's doubtful CiC is getting paid for it as TiC posits (especially their "army of paid trolls" theory - if there is such a thing, the vast left-wing conpiracy needs to get in touch with me ASAP).

The area code for my home planet is Xenu-2598.

[Chuck Coughlin]

I agree, Greg, anonymous blogging should be made illegal.

[hKrustofsky]

Allowing anonymous comments is a valuable service (see Federalist Papers for further reference).

That said, Greg still has IP address, and for those of us running Firefox w/ NoScript.....

[Barrett Marston]

I'm moving to Iowa where me and Art Vitasek can get married.