MDH News

Blogging is an activity that requires very little of its participants. It requires nothing other than access to a computer and the ability to type. That’s it. Grammar, ethics, truth, accountability, editing and the other things that might keep someone from writing for publication are obsolete. Take Perez Hilton as an example. Homeboy can’t spell, has no ethics, foregoes even CURSORY editing and takes very little responsibility for his content, hiding behind the flawed logic that if someone’s on his radar they chose to be heckled. He doesn’t even use his real name, though at this point everyone knows it, so I suppose he is at least partially accountable.

But, in the blogosphere it seems that if a blogger wants to have any kind of credibility they should use their own name. Some don’t. There are several contributors to The League of Ordinary Gentlemen that don’t use their full names because of possible conflicts of interest. I contend that maybe they shouldn’t be blogging there if there is potential for problems. But, at least their posts are well-researched and thoughtful. Regardless, if bloggers want to be taken seriously like traditional journalists, whatever that means anymore, they should adhere to at least some of the same ethical standards and I think using your real name is one of the most important ones.

Why is it such a potential problem to have anonymous sources? Because these anonymous sources could be yanking your chain and, even more likely, they’ve got an ax to grind and allowing them anonymity gives them cover they do not deserve. That’s not to say that there’s no place for anonymous sources. How could someone cover the intelligence beat without being able to grant anonymity? But, journalists do not deserve anonymity. Do bloggers? Depends on what they’re covering and who you ask. But, I’m inclined to say that anyone who criticizes or attacks other people by their real name should use their own real name to do it. Why do I bring this up? Because there has recently been a bit of a sh*tstorm surrounding the outing of one such anonymous blogger.

Ed Whelan outed legal blogger Publius for what he described as irresponsible attacks. More specifically, Whelan alleged that Obsidian Wings contributor, Publius, whose real name is John T. Blevins, used his anonymity as cover in order to launch said attacks. It is interesting to note that Whelan is the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Blevins responded quickly with a blog post, the title of which should tickle Anchorman fans: Stay Classy Ed Whelan. Blevins claims that the outing was an act of revenge because he had previously criticized Whelan.

Whelan also said that his decision to out Blevins was informed by his finding out that Blevins was a law professor and Whelan thought that he should be held to a higher standard. Mark Thompson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen doesn’t buy it, even for a dollar.

The Anonymous Liberal was appalled. I am not surprised. James Joyner quotes The Anonymous Liberal in his thorough condemnation of Whelan’s act.

I found tons and tons of people that were completely against Whelan’s actions. The condemnations ran the gamut from Joyner’s thoughtful dissection of the subject to the completely childish.

I also found instructions to out and anonymous blogger.

But I really didn’t find anybody defending Whelan on the interwebz. I’m not sure I get that. What do y’all think? Did Whelan cross the line?