Captain's Quarters -

Next thing you know, the papers will have articles citing "unnamed sources". Oh, the horror of it all!

If Mr. Grubisch is so out of joint with anonymous internet postings, I assume the Washington Post will follow his urging and eschew using anonymous sources in their stories.

Yes, the biggest threat to American society is blog commentators who post without giving their full name (and as there are lots of people with the same name, we'll need to have full addresses as well.)

Mr. Grubisch does realize that the Federalist Papers were published with pseudonyms, doesn't he?

Yet another example of the MSM realizing that it is in trouble -- due to the internet -- but unable to come up with a good response. Can't stand the competition, so hamstring them.

If an anonymous commeter has a good, well reasoned comment, I'll think about it. If a named commenter has an hysterical, hate filled rant, I'll dismiss the person's viewpoint.

"Notice how Grubisch manages to equate anonymity with hate speech."

I have to tell you, in my experience, anonymous posters are responsible for a 95% of the vulgar, hate-soaked and even threating posts I've seen and had directed at myself on the Web.

Posts like that are cowardly acts. When people like NoDonkey rant about giving democRATS to al Qaeda and blah blah blah, it brings nothing to the table except some self-indulgent sense of gratification that pollutes good web sites like this one.

If you're going to say stuff like that, and yes I'm talking to you NoDonkey, be a man (or woman?) and say it under your own name. If you truly believe that, say it as yourself.

But, I digress. Handles allow people to say things they normally wouldn't say. That can be good, but it generally takes a way the inhibitions that people who are a productive, known member of society have.

I don't see why people don't go under their own name on the Web. If you're going to say something, say it. Don't say it and hide behind and handle.

That being said, it's obviously up to the owner of each site to decide how they allow people to post. I would like to more sites go the path of the Post. I'm sure many will.

And I agree anonymous posts should be allowed at the discretion of the site master in those cases.

Grubisch is either blissfully unaware of the domination of liberal views in the media, or just wants wants to protect it. If forced to use my real name, I would run the risk of anything from losing my job to losing my life, because the left is home to many people who preach tolerance and practice hate.

I have to be immersed in lib-think all around me at home and at work, but apparently that is not enough - the one way I have to speak out safely must be eliminated so that liberals can avoid any competition at all.

Grubisch thinks that news people have the right to tell others how they may express themselves. Well, I think he needs to focus on telling the truth instead of pushing an agenda. When he and his cronies figure out how to do that, I'll give him some credibility on how I should conduct myself. Until then I will assume his motives are what they appear to be, the protection of his guilds' monopoly to control information.

"UPDATE: Larry J brings up a great point in the comments section -- will Grabisch demand a top-down solution for "unnamed sources" appearing in newspapers?"

This is a silly argument. Unnamed sources, while yes are not perfect, are the only way the public gets important information they have a right to know about.

What public good does allow some DB to post under deathtofrodo75 do?

Anonymous posting on the internet is always going to be around. But I think more a more news related sites will start making people post under their name.

Re: Your comment about commenters being known by their comments rather than by their status.

Several years ago my son pointed out to me that the web is the first community in known history where what you say is more important than what you wear.

"Several years ago my son pointed out to me that the web is the first community in known history where what you say is more important than what you wear."

Which would still be the case if you posted under your own name. You'd just feel obliged to write in a way that reflected well upon yourself.

That was a cheap shot Tom. My feelings are hurt.

Not really.

How many Tom Shipleys are there in the world, Tom?

If you really stand behind the things you write, how about giving everyone your home address? And your phone number so we can call you up?

Otherwise, how do we know which Tom Shipley you are? How do we even know that you are Tom Shipley? You could be Hussein Ali Akbar for all that I know . . .

That was a cheap shot Tom. My feelings are hurt.

Not really.

How many Tom Shipleys are there in the world, Tom?

If you really stand behind the things you write, how about giving everyone your home address? And your phone number so we can call you up?

Otherwise, how do we know which Tom Shipley you are? How do we even know that you are Tom Shipley? You could be Hussein Ali Akbar for all that I know . . .

C'mon NDonk, 'ol Ship is just looking to pat himself on the back for being "brave"...

I've written this before, but I will say it again.

Posting under your own name leaves open the possibility that someone you know will see what you've written, and from what you've written know that it's you.

For me at least, this causes me to write "as myself." Which means, I write in the same manner as I would speak with people face to face. Yes, sometimes things get heated and curse word will pop out and strong opinions will be stated forcefully, but that's how I sometimes act.

I highly doubt that NoDonkey has or would -- outside close friends -- rant about democrats as he does on here.

And maybe I am patting myself on the back. But post's like NoDonkeys (sorry to keep picking on you, but yours is the most recent example that pops into my head) are cowardly. If you have a strong opinion about something, strong enough to suggest someone is a traitor or scum or whatever, be a man and state it as yourself. Otherwise, you're nothing. Sorry, that's just how I see it.

RE: Tom Shipley (May 14, 2007 9:04 AM)
I have to tell you, in my experience, anonymous posters are responsible for a 95% of the vulgar, hate-soaked and even threating posts I've seen and had directed at myself on the Web.

Have you performed a scientific analysis of such a conclusion? Have you seen any peer-reviewed material that substantiates or clarifies your anecdotal experience? And what percentage of posts, period, are presented by anonymous contributors? Could it be that 99% of them are anonymous and that the odds of vulgar posts being contributed by an anonymous poster is virtually guaranteed?

As I have commented previously, what if I signed my name "Som Thipley" and made an offensive rant. Cursory review of a signature would indicate a "real" person when in actuality it was nothing of the sort. Next, what entity will have the authority to regulate and update who is real and who is Memorex? Which government agency, which private enterprise, or which "news" outlet would you trust to filter legitimate commentary from the multitudes of online users/readers considering that each and every one of those institutions would have their own political leanings, rules, and regulations?

As it stands, anonymity/pseudonymity are part and parcel of the internet, and removing it would shut down the majority of debate. It would become the very PC environment many of us abhor in life and would merely mask the sentiments that the public carries with it every day. It would not alter thoughts of those who abandon the internet blogging world because ano/pseudonymity was forbidden. Forced, publicly and uniquely identifiable signatures will doom even "news" sites that expect to grow their audience.

Imagine making some comment (read "confession" or revelation) at a news site that has a research mechanism to investigate stories. Would you want to be the minion who reveals something factual and highly relevant to some story (whether intentionally or accidentally) and have that "news" site know your name and address? Imagine them passing that on to some other group to "research" you? We really need to rethink the idea that a database of commentators is truly a wise path to pursue despite the shortcomings of not having them to purge any "undesirables". Honest debate will naturally select out the abusive. In time the most abusive will perish as discredited rubbish.

There are avenues for real abuse to be challenged and, if need be, prosecuted. Succumbing to the whims of a Tom Grubisch is risky and perhaps foolish.

RE: Tom Shipley (May 14, 2007 9:04 AM)
I have to tell you, in my experience, anonymous posters are responsible for a 95% of the vulgar, hate-soaked and even threating posts I've seen and had directed at myself on the Web.

Have you performed a scientific analysis of such a conclusion? Have you seen any peer-reviewed material that substantiates or clarifies your anecdotal experience? And what percentage of posts, period, are presented by anonymous contributors? Could it be that 99% of them are anonymous and that the odds of vulgar posts being contributed by an anonymous poster is virtually guaranteed?

As I have commented previously, what if I signed my name "Som Thipley" and made an offensive rant. Cursory review of a signature would indicate a "real" person when in actuality it was nothing of the sort. Next, what entity will have the authority to regulate and update who is real and who is Memorex? Which government agency, which private enterprise, or which "news" outlet would you trust to filter legitimate commentary from the multitudes of online users/readers considering that each and every one of those institutions would have their own political leanings, rules, and regulations?

As it stands, anonymity/pseudonymity are part and parcel of the internet, and removing it would shut down the majority of debate. It would become the very PC environment many of us abhor in life and would merely mask the sentiments that the public carries with it every day. It would not alter thoughts of those who abandon the internet blogging world because ano/pseudonymity was forbidden. Forced, publicly and uniquely identifiable signatures will doom even "news" sites that expect to grow their audience.

Imagine making some comment (read "confession" or revelation) at a news site that has a research mechanism to investigate stories. Would you want to be the minion who reveals something factual and highly relevant to some story (whether intentionally or accidentally) and have that "news" site know your name and address? Imagine them passing that on to some other group to "research" you? We really need to rethink the idea that a database of commentators is truly a wise path to pursue despite the shortcomings of not having them to purge any "undesirables". Honest debate will naturally select out the abusive. In time the most abusive will perish as discredited rubbish.

There are avenues for real abuse to be challenged and, if need be, prosecuted. Succumbing to the whims of a Tom Grubisch is risky and perhaps foolish. Furthermore, Grubisch may only be upset that his ox is being gored, an ox his institution has capitalized upon for years. Now that competition challenges his authority on the dissemination of legitimate news and analysis, he wants to remove ano/pseudonymity from the critical masses. Sorry. That ship has sailed and he better learn to swim.

Sorry about the double posting. Internal server errors getting thrown about here.

Ed, check your logs. Also, please delete the "AnonymousDrivel at May 14, 2007 9:56 AM" post.

Oh please, Tom. Your standard of courage is to put a name on an Internet post? That's a pretty low bar.

What real difference does it make? There are probably thousands of Tom Shipleys in the world and we have absolutely no idea if you are actually Tom Shipley. Names are irrelevant.

It's a useless as someone saying I have credentials X and Y and that's why my argument should trump yours.

There's no way of telling.

And believe me, I write my worthless Democrat Congressmen regularly and I use my name/address.

Rarely do my worthless Democrat Congressmen respond. And fightin' Jim Webb and fightin' Jim Moran have yet to show up at my door, despite the fact that Moran has assaulted clergymen and 10 year old boys in the past.

I guess they are just too cowardly.

Various kinds of do-gooders and Democrats (Tom Sipley, it is you, girl) really feel threatened by anonymity of the Internet. They can't use the tools of group hounding of the individuals and hate speech labels to intimidate opponents. Guess what, it is freedom of speech, as Founding Fathers intended it to be. Popularity of anonymous posting is a good indicator how much of the freedom to speak we’ve lost, by various PC, sensitivity and hate speech tools. It is time to take it back and use it, as long as it lasts. And if Tom Sipley doesn’t like it - tough.

I agree 100% with Larry J. When the MSM can give us the names of their anonymous sources, then I might just give them credibility. I can understand anonymous sources in critical circumstances, but the MSM use that "tag" to get their own point of view out and kill the target. Credibility? Ha!

Tom Shipley,

You and I hashed all this out on this forum on April 12, 2007. What I said then still stands, and NoDonkey seems to have reached the identical conclusion: As unclesmrgol, I leave a far more vivid trail than you do as "Tom Shipley". If you want to google my writings, entering unclesmrgol doesn't even require you to filter the results. With "Tom Shipley" (owner of 1,190,000 google postings), the searcher does have to do quite a bit of filtering to locate your personal results. Also, with "Tom Shipley", the searcher might believe they have to search "Thomas Shipley" or even "Tom" and "Shipley" without quotes to catch your middle name should you have used it.

By the way, I just googled "tom shipley" (quoted) and google coughed up 13,700 references. My name, quoted, gets 160,000 references. I guarantee that I do NOT have a web presence that large, and I'll bet you don't either. Note that "unclesmrgol" coughs up 936 references. It's a lot easier to get the dirt on me by browsing 936 references than browsing 160,000. See how easy I make it for you? And, if you really want the 160,000, you can still find my real name.

The last sock puppet user I know of was a reporter, Michael Hiltzik, over at the LA Times -- surely a mainstream reporter if there ever was one. You have a legitimate concern if you see problems with sock puppets, but anonymous writing is present even the newspaper today. As someone above has pointed out, "a source who spoke only on condition of anonymity", "an Adminstration official who declined to be named", "deep throat", and other types of anonymous attribution liberally sprinkle the pages of any top tier daily.

Siply,

Handles allow people to say things they normally wouldn't say.

True, but that's usually how they feel. Today's politically correct BS climate has done well to hamper the expression of one's TRUE feelings. Loads and loads of people are truely tired of the lefts BS and their Do as I say (but not as I do) attempt to control every aspect of American life. Too bad you don't like being called on your BS since it hard to refute facts coupled with disdain toward people like you.

The TRUTH hurts, doesn't it.

will Grabisch demand a top-down solution for "unnamed sources" appearing in newspapers?

Of course he won't. Just another double standard that borders on hypocrisy from our friendly, neighbourhood liberal media.

Tom - I have to agree with the other posters here...there is a certain need, in the wild, wooly internet, for anonymity. I have lost count of how many times I have submitted letters to my local paper (the Minneapolis Star Tribune) where I have gotten HATE MAIL from "anonymous" readers. They went to the trouble of looking up my name in the phone book and written - no return address (of course) and certainly no calls where caller ID could identify them.

No thank you - I will continue to remain behind my anonymous "handle" until such time as the haters get control of their tempers.

LL

Grubisch no doubt hates the idea of anonymous whistle blowers. omitting the vulgar anonymous crap on the Internet, the commenters that actually point out bias or errors are in a way whistle blowers, ones that perhaps don't want to get in trouble at work or, heaven forbid, want to keep their workplace lives politics free. It's a new century, Grubisch, deal with it.

"This is a silly argument. Unnamed sources, while yes are not perfect, are the only way the public gets important information they have a right to know about.

What public good does allow some DB to post under deathtofrodo75 do?"

And what public good does allowing papers to publish unsigned editorials? Hey? What's the difference? The paper would defend such things saying "it's the idea that's important, not the inkstained wretch who wrote it".

And those who post with Internet handles do no worse than the WaPo or NYT. Actually, observing the lockstep ideology behind those papers, they do far better because of the DIVERSITY of those unsigned posts - they don't all wish mindlessly that George Bush be roasted on a spit.

And for unnamed 'sources', there must never be a shield for them. It's all too easy for the ideological crusaders in the papers to fabricate those 'sources', and use their 'revelations' to fabricate public opinion at the writer's whim.

I remember, seems like 100 years ago, I was driving a cab at night, and two "professionals" in the back seat were arguing about how the "misery index" was calculated. And I was going to be the hero, and help one of them out, and I cited my source rather well I thought, but to them it was like hearing a talking dog. I could tell they had no intention of believing me, because after all I was just a cabdriver. How would I know? That's why you like to be anonymous sometimes, so your thoughts can stand or fall on their own.

Too bad you don't like being called on your BS since it hard to refute facts coupled with disdain toward people like you.

Now this I just find hilarious. And before I start, there are a lot of conservative posters here and elsewhere who write reasoned, well-mannered posts that have at least some respect for the other side. Cap'n is one of them.

Last week, I was accused of just spouting talking pointing and diagnosed with BDS. I was accused on not being able to back up my claims... or not even trying to.

Now, I challenge anyone to go back and read a sample of my posts. You'll find this simply isn't the case.

Now when these claims were made against me, I challenged those who made these claims to debate actually issues. I even started it off.

No response.

The fact is, I was being accused -- as BillyBob is AGAIN accusing me of -- not being able to refute the "facts" that conservative bloggers regularly use to beat democratic talking points. And when I provided facts to back up my argument, NO RESPONSE. It's just all so ridiculous.

The problem is that many posters just log on to attack "liberals" or "conservatives" and end up lumping anyone with a liberal or conservative view into an amalgam of the worst stereotypes of each. They don't respond to the substance of each individual post, but attack the "monster" that's out to destroy America.

Most of these are anonymous bloggers who contribute nothing but ill-informed hateful rants to the conversation... in others words, they contribute nothing.

So, BillyBob, save me the "truth hurts" BS. If you want to debate actually issues, I'll do it til the cows come home. Save you're hateful generalizations for someone else.

Actually some could hide behind their real names if they're common enough (I know 3 other men who - though unrelated to me - have the same first and last name I do and my name is not all that common). Remember "the Phone Book killer" remark and Sarah Connors from the original Terminator?

What it really comes down to is that the elitist professional journalist has lost control of what the public knows. As far as blog comments go, anonymous comments are generally considered of lower value than posts with names or webnames attached.

And what public good does allowing papers to publish unsigned editorials? Hey? What's the difference?

Well, the names of the editorial staff is published in every newspaper. It's not really anonymous.

The Washington Post, like our other national news media including the New York Times and Newsweek, has a long record of publishing anonymous accusations of criminal wrongdoing against people in public office.

That's hate speech, and it harms our country.

The local newspapers do not publish anonymous accusations. Their ethics are better.

"Well, the names of the editorial staff is published in every newspaper. It's not really anonymous."

The hell it's not. Even today, a few editorial staffs have some mental diversity, and the cowardly application of the whole staff's identities as a 'signature' is simply a shield maintaining anonymity for the individual who wrote the rant of the day.

A responder is thereby forced to address the idea in the editorial. Gosh, what a concept. Us handle-wielders rather like it.

Not all of us spew obscene ad-hominem slags, you know. Readers who are smart enough to participate in debates of the issues should easily ignore the personal quibbles and insults and capitalized flatulisms to find posts that convey reasoned arguments. Those who don't ignore them may enjoy feeding trolls, but at least their scribblings are more beneficial to society than riots in the streets.

Once upon a time, I worked for the news department of a Connecticut radio station that featured a midday talk show host who took phone calls from listeners.

A Connecticut lawmaker who felt bruised by on-air comments on a radio show (not necessarily the one I just mentioned) wanted to get a law passed that would require that all callers to radio shows be identified by name before going on the air.

Needless to say, the proposal didn't get very far. But at least it gave me the opportunity to interview our host so he could denounce the idea in our newscasts.

RE: Tom Shipley (May 14, 2007 11:33 AM)
Well, the names of the editorial staff is published in every newspaper. It's not really anonymous.

Insufficiently Sensitive addressed this rather succinctly, but it, tangentially, reminds me once again of the filter old media used with rigor. It still happens today in the online version of the parchment news.

Have you ever written a "Letter to the Editor" either by letter or by byte? What are the odds of it getting published? And what are the odds that it really reflects the cross-section of a region's constituency? I've made respectable responses to my local monopoly, and the only ones that ever made it to public view were ones that were purely fact-based on trivial sports issues. No serious and challenging opinion I have ever made managed to survive the filters of the liberal press or the host requesting public input. Now I know it's possible that my comments were poor, but they certainly weren't any worse than what actually made it to print (IMO). Curiously, poorly argued opinion in support of the editors tended to be accepted, so I'm a bit baffled as to how that works. At any rate the local monopoly biases both its commentary and its published responses to its commentary such that it serves more as the liberal house organ than it does as the public orchestra. What's worse is that I live in a region where conservatives outnumber liberals rather handily, so the medium's news sings a more liberal song in spite of its audience's preferences.

Why does this matter? I find that to get balanced reportage that I must get news elsewhere, and that to make a contribution to debate in an open society that I must make it via another medium, namely blogs. Old media, the one that votes 70-85+% Democrat/Liberal, does not fairly disseminate news and opinion. The news market is responding, finally, not because old media has changed its stripes but because new media has dumped the patterns. Receptivity to open ano/pseudonymity is but once of the paradigm shifts that actually empowers the new kids on the block. Old media, while having used the anonymity card for generations, has abused that deck... and disingenuously at that. Blogs provide the forum for the un(der)served at the expense of the information monopolies. I consider that a great lede. Any chance the NYTimes runs with it?

Budd,

Not sure they still do this, but last time I called CSPAN on an issue, they asked me my name and city before I was allowed to question the guest (some Clinton lackey). I didn't say anything I wouldn't have said on any postings here on the Captain's Blog. (Thanks for your patience etc Cap’n!) and the same could be said for the other callers. If someone rants, you hang up (or scroll down on the blog).

The problem with people like Ship is that they are self important. As if most people who read this blog drop what they're doing when they see someone "brave", like Ship, who signs his name to the comment, right?. "Alert the media, George, Ship is making another important post." The fact that he thinks his comments are somehow superior to others merely because he claims to “sign” them, says it all…and is cause to LOL.

By the way…if everyone had to sign their comments, we'd see a HUGE drop in comments wouldn't we? How many of you windbags (myself included!) are typing on "company" machines? :>

Grubisch is unsettled because the internet is more of an electronic 'Town Square' than the media is the 'Town Crier'!

I tired long ago at being talked down to by obviously biased news organizations. The most fragile and precious commodity we are individually privileged to put forth, in the marketplace of ideas, is our credibility. A substance I might add which is in short supply in much of today's media.

Grubisch is showing his arrogance and ignorance in dismissing the intelligent folks who populate the internet. I trust more bloggers posting in their underwear than I do a 'suit' preaching from the bully pulpit of a bought and paid for news organization beholden to the likes of George Soros.

Nope. I use my own name.

But what I've noticed about the press? They change their names to sound better in print. Heck, a long time ago, a FEMALE decided she'd sell more books with a different handle. So GEORGE ELLIOT was born.

Names don't tell ya a thing, if you don't know the person.

Heck, do you remember Gary Hart? Now there's a name change for ya. His name's Hartpence. But he wanted something better "for the politics of it all."

Then? Hartpence met Donna Rice. And, he became history. Couldn't get elected dog catcher.

There's lots of names on the right. And, lots of people who prefer the anonymity of their "sorority status." As they join groups to "belong" ... and then they're just sisters. And, brothers. Who think if they can get card-carriers to agree with them, then they've made it big in the media environment.

And, why just stop at names? You think THE GREEN HELMET MAN was an Internet fraud? Or just a fraud?

You'd be surprised how people, today, both have to guard themselves. Where someone's name can get abused by a "crazy out there." And, those who want to be known by what they say. So, someone stealing a tag; just looks like someone who "doesn't fit the description."

As to why there's media hostility these days? It's how they express themselves from the major nutworks, to the major calamities called press and dailies. They've shot their own audiences, away.

While no one here actually even knows if their opinions get read.

The media has a vested interest in portraying our voices as loathsome.

WHile in eygpt? The blogger the BIG PHARAOH, and SANDMONKEY, have been carted off to jail. Had a judge putting him, or them, into the slammer for four years.

I guess the despots are terrified of the blogs.

And, here, they can't do that! At least, not yet. Our democracy has survived a lot of hokum. A lot of agendas. They come and go. Just like the winds.

I live in the DC area, like Grubisch.

I've had my car vandalized several times, just for having a bumper sticker with a Republican candidate's name on it (George Allen, for one).

And now Grubisch wants us to sign Internet posts?

Not likely. I've seen Democrats with bumperstickers call for Bush to be impeached, with upside down flags, etc., and they stay on the cars for years. Republicans respect other people's property.

I'm not trying to find out what one of these leftwing lunatics is capable of, if he has my name.

The problem with people like Ship is that they are self important.

Well, I think ego has a lot to do with most blogging on the Internet. You're statement "the problem with people like Ship..." insinuates that you "understand" me. You read me. If that doesn't involve a healthy bit of ego, I don't know what does.

And I know my comments are better than a lot of posters on here. Because I A) Don't resort to name calling. And B) Don't generalize or demonize those with opposing views. It's rather simple. I don't think it's any great achievement to be better than those who employ both of those methods.

More than anything, I like a good debate. And there have been times when people on here have engaged me in a good back and forth. And when that back and forth centers on thought-out arguments and at least a small respect for the person on the other side, they end up being very civil. To me, that's the one of the best things blogs provide. And no, one does not have to use their own name.

It's just those anonymous posters who just rant about the evils of the other side of the ailse that are loud and useless -- and cowardly -- that piss me off.

"UPDATE: Larry J brings up a great point in the comments section -- will Grabisch demand a top-down solution for "unnamed sources" appearing in newspapers?"

This is a silly argument. Unnamed sources, while yes are not perfect, are the only way the public gets important information they have a right to know about.

When a newspaper cites "unnamed sources", how do we know they aren't just making up stuff? Fact is, all we have to go on is the reporter's word and frankly, that's not good enough. It's amazing how often a reporter can find an "unnamed source" that matches what the reporter wanted the article to say.

I suppose that all of the WaPo's editorial page slams of all things conservative will be signed by individual editors from now on rather than be "anonymous."

I suppose that all of the WaPo's editorial page slams of all things conservative will be signed by individual editors from now on rather than be "anonymous."

Speaking of transparency, why stop with unnamed sources?

I'd like to see the L.A. Times disclose the voting record and campaign donations for all its news editors and writers. A simple mention of the writer's party affiliation - a little (d) for democrat next to the writer's name would satisfy me. Why can't I know that about the people bringing me the news?

I think this is the first step msm and the elitists to "cook up" another "public demand" to clean up the internet (i.e., stiffle different pov), just wait till you hear their definition of 'hate speech'.

Remember the bogus poll numbers after poll numbers (by Tide Foundation) of public demand for campaign finance reform?

Cap, I think you misspelled Grubisich through the entire article.

Cap, I think you misspelled Grubisich through the entire article.