I’ve been wondering if I have an opinion rather than a preference about anonymity or pseudonymity in blogging. There’s been a big kerfuffle in the world of UK political blogs over the story of Night Jack (whose blog has now been taken down), a blogging detective unmasked by the Times as a detective constable in Lancashire called Richard Horton. This case even went to the courts as DC Horton attempted to defend his anonymity.
For those of you who are new to the story, you can read
- Richard Horton’s own account here.
- An angry rant in favour of his anonymity from the left-wing here.
- An angry statement in favour of his anonymity from the right-wing here.
- A more thoughtful post on the question from the pseudonymous Heresiarch.
- A defence of the Times‘ unmasking from its comment editor Danny Finkelstein.
It seems to me that there are (at least) two confusions in these comments. The first concerns the specious comparison between an anonymous blogger and a journalistic source. In the latter case, one hopes the journalist has done due diligence in checking their source, has explored whether they are in fact in a position to know the things they are claiming, whether they have a grudge, and whether this checks out against other information. In fact, a good number of sources with protected anonymity can often together help provide a picture that could never emerge from trusting just one of them, or indeed, the official picture. (Unfortunately, the use of sources is now heavily tainted by the habits of cosy lobby journalists passing off some spin-doctor or another as “a source close to X”).
In the case of an anonymous blogger, it is quite hard to check out many of these things, and in the global gossip mill that is the internet it is quite possible for an anonymous person to perpetrate a massive deception at a speed that will vastly exceed the speed of any possible rebuttal by the person or people traduced. Good journalists were (are?) meant to provide a certain quality control over their sources. Anonymous blogging has no such filter.
The second confusion is between the right of someone to publish anonymously and their right to stay anonymous privately. Anonymous publication has a long history on pamphleteering. The attempt to identify and (often) punish or suppress the pamphleteer also has a long history. The anonymous publisher always runs the risk of being identified. The more their publications appear to infringe on other people’s secrets (or even strong opinions) the more likely they make it that others who disagree with their opinions will seek out their identities. (Over the pond another anonymous writer on the politically liberal site Obsidian Wings has recently been unmasked.)
If, for example, an anonymous publisher is seeking to influence public opinion, or give away trade secrets, or appears to others to be presenting the real truth or distorting the facts, isn’t their motivation, context and hence identity, a matter other people may wish to find out in order to help judge for themselves whether they should trust what they are being told. It is also, of course, something others may wish to find out in order to suppress information and repress the publisher. Unfortunately the two are inseparable.
It’s not straightforward. One of the reasons I like reading Heresy Corner for example, is the quality of the argument. By and large the identity of the anonymous blogger doesn’t seem to me to be relevant, although I admit it might be interesting, only because I prefer to know rather than not to know. On the other hand, Paul Staines’ Guido Fawkes blog may seem to those who research his identity (and it is certainly suggested in the blogosphere) to have far more of a political agenda than it pretends to. Likewise, when Cranmer presents himself as the voice of Anglican Tory traditionalism, it may be useful to know that the reputed author Adrian Hilton, a failed Conservative candidate, was prevented from standing for Parliament by then Tory leader Michael Howard on the grounds (whether justified or not) of anti-catholic bigotry.
Different people will reach different conclusions over whether anonymity can be justified. However, when a blogger offers public criticism of other people from behind a curtain of anonymity, it seems to me that the traditional legal right of a person to confront their accuser trumps any right of the critic to keep their identity private.
It also seems to me that those who write anonymously are more likely to write irresponsibly if not venomously. This is particularly true of many of those who leave comments on blogs. I am, on the whole, in favour of encouraging people to accept responsibility for what they say. Knowing that others know who you are tends to exercise its own control. Pseudonymity tends to corrupt civility with irresponsible rhetoric. There are plenty of exceptions to this rule, but it is sufficiently true to make one wary of the anonymous writer.
(Update: David Keen has also written a rather good reflection on the same topic)
(Update 2: Tom Harris has what I regard as an indefensible defence of DC Horton, while Oliver Kamm calls it the way I see it)
{ 2 comments }
Excellent points. I see no way to refute what you say. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a disciplined use of pseudonymity.
“there is such a thing as a disciplined use of pseudonymity”. Absolutely. The Heresy Corner blog or Obsidian Wings ones mentioned above are good examples.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }