by
Mark Landsbaum
“…let
your ‘Yes,’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment.”
(James 5:12)
One of
the most insidious – and in the long-term, destructive – characteristics
of the Internet is its anonymity. Like all widespread sins, it’s most
seductive.
Even the
intelligent, fair-minded among us can be blind to the threat and its
consequences. Take the example the case this week of Los Angeles Times
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, Michael Hiltzik. The Times suspended
Hiltzik’s online “blog” because he violated the newspaper’s policy of
posting derogatory comments under an assumed name.
[http://goldenstateblog.latimes.com/goldenstate/]
After a
rival blogger revealed that Hiltzik had posted anonymous comments on his
and other blogs, the Times writer’s reaction was to pooh-pooh the matter.
[http://goldenstateblog.latimes.com/goldenstate/2006/04/
anonymity_on_th.html#more]
Hiltzik essentially dismissed the complaint against himself with the
excuse that everyone does it.
Hiltzik,
who already has two venues for venting his opinion (a column and a blog),
apparently wanted a greater voice. And not surprisingly, what he wrote
anonymously in tone and substance typically went beyond what he put his
name to.
As a
naïve young reporter I learned from editors at the same newspaper why
bylines are placed atop articles. When I thought I was humbly protesting
that I didn’t “deserve” my name appearing on a story of pedestrian
quality, a wizened editor explained to me that the byline wasn’t a reward.
It was to identify me; to make me accountable for what I had written. It
wasn’t an, “Atta-boy.” It was, “This is who is responsible in case you
have a complaint.”
Click on
any blog. Visit any website. Enter any chat room. In how many cases are
real names attached to the material you find there?
If the
Internet is the new newspaper, the anonymity of the Internet is
journalism’s version of drive-by shooting. It is graffiti, not commentary.
It’s not dueling opinions. It’s sniper fire. The danger should be obvious.
If not, let’s review a few of the problems:
Anonymous
writers escape responsibility for what they write. As a result, they are
more inclined to say things they can’t prove. Anonymous writers who
besmirch others deny the person being written about an opportunity to know
his accuser. They also deny the reader the opportunity to weigh the
veracity of what was written by considering its source.
Comments
online are intended to be read, and usually to persuade. Serial anonymous
writers in effect stuff the ballot box by flooding discussion with what
appear to be many different speakers, when in fact all those made-up names
may represent only a few, or even a solitary person.
Anonymity
on the Internet encourages these sins. If we are to let our “Yes, be Yes,”
and our “No, be No,” it presumes that what we say is ours.
Anonymous writers deny authorship of their own words right from the start.
When the
speaker is anonymous, it’s no surprise that the tenor of conversation
online easily ventures into ad hominem attack, becoming crude, vile,
libelous and vindictive. The very same people who commit these
transgressions in almost every case would no doubt refrain from saying
such stuff – if they had to attach their names.
Whether
there’s still time to reverse this insidious trend remains to be seen. One
way is not to patronize or enable it. I receive my share of e-mail from
folks taking exception to things I write, which incidentally always
includes my byline. I always respond to the comments, and always sign my
name when I do. When e-mail arrives clearly with a pseudonym or unsigned,
my first response is to request the writer identify himself if he wants to
discuss what I’ve written. After all, I identified myself. I’m pleasantly
surprised that even the vilest complainers usually are willing to put a
name to the follow-up e-mail.
Some
might point out that anyone can make up a name. That’s true. But the
essential difference here is that anonymous writers are saying from the
get-go, “There are no rules, so I don’t have to identify myself and be
responsible.” In contrast, people who give false names when asked to
identify themselves are saying, “I acknowledge there are rules, but I’m
going to break them anyway.”
In the
current, prevailing Internet culture, exposing an anonymous writer’s
identity exposes someone who may be cowardly, but who can claim he hasn’t
broken any rules. However, exposing someone who agrees rules exist but
still violates them is an entirely different matter. That person is not
only cowardly, but dishonest.
Rules, as
we’ve seen since Moses, don’t change people. But they do make them
accountable. This is the difference between a postmodern worldview in
which anything goes – including not identifying oneself – and a Christian
worldview in which rules matter, and those who break them are deemed to
have done something wrong.
There may
be hope for reversing this Internet equivalent of drive-by shooting. The
Times’ own ethical standards [http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/losangelestimes.htm]
appear to address the matter from a Christian worldview, rather than from
the postmodern anything-goes approach.
In part,
the Times’ policy holds that its writers, “. . . are committed to
informing readers as completely as possible; the use of anonymous sources
compromises this important value . . . When we use anonymous sources, it
should be to convey important information to our readers. We should not
use such sources to publish material that is trivial, obvious or
self-serving . . . Sources should never be permitted to use the shield of
anonymity to voice speculation or to make ad hominem attacks . . .
Fabrication of any type is unacceptable. We do not create composite
characters. We do not use pseudonyms.”
Anonymity
is most insidious when used by a writer to conceal his own identity to
make accusations or advance views he obviously isn’t proud of or willing to
associate his name with.
Mainstream journalism is fraught with credibility problems. It’s no secret
that the vast majority of so-called “news” reporters and editors are
left-leaning, and that what works its way into print and broadcasts is
seriously tainted by a godless, secular humanism that fully embraces
left-wing ideology. The Internet can be – and indeed has been – an
alternative to such biased reporting. But by adopting the worst ethical
transgressions of the Internet, the mainline press only aggravates its
problem. It doesn’t correct it.
