"The identity of the person who writes the liberal Democratic Mudflats blog has been secret since the blog began, protected by the Anchorage Daily News, among others. My own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name. So I was interested to learn that the woman who writes the blog is Anchorage resident [redacted]"I'm going to respect her privacy and desire for anonymity and will not reprint her name here. But Doogan put it out there for all to see (though at first he got her last name wrong). In an interview, he expanded on his reasoning:
"If this was a group of people sitting around the living room, relentlessly attacking public figures, that would be one thing. But she's been doing that on the Internet--which goes everywhere--for the better part of the year, and she's allowed to do that anonomously? Where's the benefit of that to our state or our country?"The short answers to Doogan's two questions are: (1) Yes, she is allowed to do that anonymously. And (2), the benefit is that the lack of any mandatory identification law or rule allows for the marketplace of ideas to be filled with additional thoughts, discussion and debate. But more on that later.
Doogan's actions--which shape up as a personal vendetta to out this woman--have resulted in a pretty big backlash. AKMuckraker's initial reaction is here, and you can find a ton of links to other criticism and analysis here.
Anonymity can never be guaranteed in this forum. But a blogger can take steps to protect her privacy and AKMuckraker did so. Her choice to remain anonymous was respected by many, including the Anchorage Daily News. However, when you get into this game, you run the risk of being exposed, and should the preventative measures you put in place fail, you can't cry about it. That's the nature of the business.
That being said, it was inappropriate for a sitting legislator to make it his mission to our her. This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It really bothers me, both as a blogger and as someone who spends a lot of time contemplating the balance that should be struck between freedom of speech, an individual's right to privacy, and the public's need to have open access to information. In fact, it has bothered me so much that my companion for dinner on saturday night and breakfast on sunday morning asked me to "please stop talking about it already." I'll stop, but in just a couple more minutes. Here are my reasons why Mike Doogan was wrong:
Anonymity can never be guaranteed in this forum. But a blogger can take steps to protect her privacy and AKMuckraker did so. Her choice to remain anonymous was respected by many, including the Anchorage Daily News. However, when you get into this game, you run the risk of being exposed, and should the preventative measures you put in place fail, you can't cry about it. That's the nature of the business.
That being said, it was inappropriate for a sitting legislator to make it his mission to our her. This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It really bothers me, both as a blogger and as someone who spends a lot of time contemplating the balance that should be struck between freedom of speech, an individual's right to privacy, and the public's need to have open access to information. In fact, it has bothered me so much that my companion for dinner on saturday night and breakfast on sunday morning asked me to "please stop talking about it already." I'll stop, but in just a couple more minutes. Here are my reasons why Mike Doogan was wrong:
- Mike Doogan is not the Ethics Police and no law was broken. Doogan admits that he decided to reveal her identity because his "own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name." So he force-fed his own code of journalistic principles and his view of what participation in public debate should look like down AKMuckraker's throat. That's a code that isn't written down anywhere, by the way. There is no law requiring an individual to reveal their identity when making a statement (in most cases). That's the beauty of the First Amendment. You can say what you want, and if what you say may be unpopular you can hide behind a blog, a mask, or a white hood. In some cases (like those racist assholes with the hoods), anonymity is the direct result of the speaker's cowardice, but that is not the case here. AKMuckraker was criticizing Sarah Palin and promoting her own political point of view. If she wanted to do so without signing her name, that was her right and Mike Doogan had absolutely no moral authority to take that right away from her.
- There is good policy behind protecting anonymous Internet speech. AKMuckraker is not a professional journalist. Many brave journalists tackle issues that bring with them the specter of political retribution. Writing strongly about a controversial topic carries risk. But professionals are (usually) supported by their employers and colleagues and it is their job to take those risks and to write truthfully and honestly. A private blogger is not a member of the newspaper club and is not afforded those same protections. If such a person chooses to publicly express herself but remain anonymous because she does not want her writing to conflict with the rest of her life, that's her right. Remaining anonymous allows her to prodcue content that thousands and thousands of people read on a daily basis. If she loses the protection of anonymity, she can no longer write and the public forum and the marketplace of ideas loses a voice (just like in Pump Up The Volume).
- Doogan fails to grasp how blogs work as a news medium. AKMuckraker is not a reporter for a major paper. She's a mom with a blog. That's the beauty of the Internet: everyone can have a voice now (that's the benefit to our state and country, since you asked, Mike). Doogan isn't straight-up opposed to this, I'm sure he supports the First Amendment. Instead he takes issue with the amount of influence she has. He explained that if she were having these discussions with her friends in her living room that would be fine. But in his view, because she broadcasts her opinions to the world there is a concomittant obligaiton to identify herself. The problem with this is that there is no objective standard to measure when one must reveal their previously-anonymized identity. What if she had just 50 readers? Could she keep her privacy then? What if she only intended for her readership to be small, but thousands of people sought out and wanted to read her opinions? Should she be punished for that? At what point (under Doogan's theory) did she lose the right to remain anonymous? Doogan seems to fear that voters and politicians will bow to her influence without knowing who she is. Much like the public has a right to know what interest groups are funding certain legislative efforts, if you are seriously considering the arguments raised on The Mudflats, you should consider the source: politicians and the public shouldn't put too much faith in an anonymous private blog (see, e.g., the Wizard from The Wizard of Oz). But we can if we want to. Or if her ideas carry less weight becuase they are anonymous, so be it and let the marketplace of ideas dictates the value of her words.
- It was inappropriate for a sitting legislator to engage in this activity. It was no easy task for Doogan to track down her identity, and it is sounding more and more like he was on a little bit of a crusade. He specifically said he was upset that "she's allowed to do that anonymously." So, he was miffed that (1) she was "getting away" with something that he could not do when he was a paid professional journalist, and (2) no one was taking her to task over it. But, as explained above, Mike Doogan is not the Internet Police. Or even an Internet ethics specialist. When did this become his responsibility? And to throw his own question back to him, what value have his actions conferred upon our state? My opinion is that our elected representatives should not be spending gov't time on such personal pet projects, and that they probably have more important things to be working on right now like, oh, I don't know, the gas pipline, the debate over the death penalty, or a certain Governor's attempt to disregard the Alaska Supreme Court and whittle away reproductive rights.