I made the paper today. Yep, I was quoted in an article in today's Miami Herald. The quote was lifted from comments I made in response to a blog by Bob Norman over on the New Times website.
Here's what the Herald printed:
I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that, especially if you also read this story by the Herald's ombudsman, Edward Schumacher-Matos. In it, he discusses the problems of anonymity and freedom it gives some people to post hateful speech. The Herald allows readers to post responses to articles; often, the comments are nothing but a stream of invective carefully crafted to avoid using words that are blocked from posting. Most of those comments are truly anonymous; no way to know who's putting up the libel, or even if it's more than one person or the same drooling idiot over and over again.
But the Herald has edited my quote, at the cost of some accuracy. So here is the full sentence (with the part the Herald omitted in italics):
I understand both the need and the desire for anonymity. While I believe that you have more credibility if you put your real name on the things you write, I know that not everyone is in a position to do that. I work in the arts, where many of my colleagues have created names that they work under in order to ensure that they have privacy in their private lives. No one questions this practice, but they certainly put this poor bastard through the ringer.
You know who was anonymous and yet widely respected and even beloved by the entire world? Ben Franklin. He invented the cast-iron stove, bifocal glasses, started the post service, suggested time zones, mapped out the Gulf Stream, figured out how to prove that Lightening was made of electricity, and helped to write the Declaration of Independence.
Here's what the Herald printed:
C.L. Jahn from the Man or Maniac? blog commented on Norman's site: ``If a blogger chooses to be anonymous, there's no point in trying to unmask them. . .''Man, that sounds fatuous, doesn't it? I must be some kind of left-wing anarchist; let anyone do what they want anytime for any reason. Let the criminals remain cloaked! To hell with democracy, let's have a free-for-all.
I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that, especially if you also read this story by the Herald's ombudsman, Edward Schumacher-Matos. In it, he discusses the problems of anonymity and freedom it gives some people to post hateful speech. The Herald allows readers to post responses to articles; often, the comments are nothing but a stream of invective carefully crafted to avoid using words that are blocked from posting. Most of those comments are truly anonymous; no way to know who's putting up the libel, or even if it's more than one person or the same drooling idiot over and over again.
But the Herald has edited my quote, at the cost of some accuracy. So here is the full sentence (with the part the Herald omitted in italics):
"If a blogger chooses to be anonymous, there's no point in trying to unmask them unless there's a clear indication that the blogger is using his position towards a destructive end, which Rick nor SOTP has done."Not so fatuous now, huh?
I understand both the need and the desire for anonymity. While I believe that you have more credibility if you put your real name on the things you write, I know that not everyone is in a position to do that. I work in the arts, where many of my colleagues have created names that they work under in order to ensure that they have privacy in their private lives. No one questions this practice, but they certainly put this poor bastard through the ringer.
"For the record, I HATE anonymous bloggers. They, in my view, are chickensh-- people who don't stand behind their words,''Strong words from Chuck. Complete bullshit, too. Remember, the sequence of events included an "anonymous" blogger standing by his words. And he got bitch-slapped and threatened for his efforts. You know what I hate, Chuck? Editorial morons who can't keep their facts straight, that's what.
Miami New Times editor Chuck Strouse
You know who was anonymous and yet widely respected and even beloved by the entire world? Ben Franklin. He invented the cast-iron stove, bifocal glasses, started the post service, suggested time zones, mapped out the Gulf Stream, figured out how to prove that Lightening was made of electricity, and helped to write the Declaration of Independence.
Benjamin Franklin also wrote an "almanac," a collection of calendar events, weather predictions, useful articles, jokes, and other things that interested the author; in short, Franklin was an 18th century blogger. He wrote it under the pseudonym "Poor Richard," and maintained a separate identity for years. Why didn't Franklin just put his name on it? Franklin was already a widely known scientist and respected philosopher; certainly people would have bought "Ben Franklin's Almanac."
Dr. Franklin had a reputation as a scientist; while his wit and humor were widely known, he was respected a serious professional. "Poor Richard's Almanac," while it had some useful content, was light-hearted and accessible to the earthier members of society. It was a tabloid, complete with cliff-hanger serializations, astrologies, and political cartoons. And so he published it for 26 years, anonymously. What a chickenshit that Ben Franklin was, huh? Thanks, Chuck. Your "insight" enlightens us all.
We really should clear up what anonymous really means; we all know what we THINK it means; but everyone one of us tends to get lazy (Chuck, quit ogling your secretary.)
From Merriam-Websters' online dictionary:
- Main Entry: anon·y·mous
- Pronunciation:\ə-ˈnä-nə-məs\
- Function: adjective
- Etymology:Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anōnymos, from a- + onyma name — more at name
- Date:1631
2 : of unknown authorship or origin
3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
The thing is, as far as the blogger is concerned, there is no anonymity. We have an identity, and we can easily identify what he writes. While Richard Bachman, Poor Richard, and Rick all have OTHER identities, none of them are actually anonymous. We know them by their words, their associations, and their byline.
The point I was making in my comments to Bob was that we already know enough about Rick. Here's his blog. Here are the articles he wrote. Here are his comments in response to your comments. In the strictest sense, he wasn't anonymous at all.
The point I was making in my comments to Bob was that we already know enough about Rick. Here's his blog. Here are the articles he wrote. Here are his comments in response to your comments. In the strictest sense, he wasn't anonymous at all.
What Rick was REALLY doing was working under a pseudonym. A "pen-name," or "handle."
Why do it? As I noted above, there's lots of precedent. Actors, writers, and yes, even respected journalists, often have an identity under which their work is known that is distinct from the identity found on their social security cards, drivers licenses and birth certificates. This is done not to defraud the public, but to protect the privacy of the actor, writer or journalist.
It also allows you to discuss sensitive topics without repercussion. And I don't mean simply saying "bad" or "mean" stuff about others. There are topics so private that we are embarrassed to discuss them; and right now you're thinking I mean sex. And you'd be right, and you'd also be wrong.
It also allows you to discuss sensitive topics without repercussion. And I don't mean simply saying "bad" or "mean" stuff about others. There are topics so private that we are embarrassed to discuss them; and right now you're thinking I mean sex. And you'd be right, and you'd also be wrong.
In society, we have all sorts of taboo subjects; sex, religion, teen pregnancy, capital punishment, polygamy, drugs, and how to hang the toilet paper on the dispenser. These are subjects that require examination from time to time. But there can be costs to that: family spats, personal vendettas, ostracization, and even murder.
It is for this reason we have anonymous balloting at the polls: even your spouse doesn't get to know how you voted. It's the only way we can keep the polls honest. There are places in the world where they hold elections: once a year, everyone comes into town and votes the tyrant back in power while the tyrant's goons watch you fill in the ballot.
Val Prieto ought to know something about that: he writes for Babalu, a blog dedicated to a Cuba free from the oppression of Fidel Castro. There is no free-press in Cuba, and certainly no free exchange of ideas. You can be arrested for speaking critically of the Castro regime, its policies, or even Marxist socialism itself.
It is for this reason we have anonymous balloting at the polls: even your spouse doesn't get to know how you voted. It's the only way we can keep the polls honest. There are places in the world where they hold elections: once a year, everyone comes into town and votes the tyrant back in power while the tyrant's goons watch you fill in the ballot.
Val Prieto ought to know something about that: he writes for Babalu, a blog dedicated to a Cuba free from the oppression of Fidel Castro. There is no free-press in Cuba, and certainly no free exchange of ideas. You can be arrested for speaking critically of the Castro regime, its policies, or even Marxist socialism itself.
Here's a clip from the Herald article:
One person who won't miss it is Val Prieto. His blog, Babalú, which focuses on politics and Cuban issues, has often been critical of Stuck on the Palmetto, and vice versa.
Prieto, whose full name appears on his site, said he thinks readers give more weight to blogs with identified writers.
''Anybody can say whatever they want if they're hiding behind a pseudonym,'' Prieto said in a phone interview.
Yes, they can. That is exactly the point.
