On The Grave Threat Posed By Pseudonymous Bloggers

I have been amused by the recent handwringing by certain members of the so-called mainstream media about the grave perils that face our state because certain bloggers choose to use pseudonyms rather than post under their own names.

The beginning for all such bloviating is the apparently required point that anyone who blogs under a pseudonym inherently lacks credibility because they "will not attach their name to their writings." 

First of all, I would suggest that "Howard Beale" enjoys far higher credibility in his/her/their writings than do many of the established "journalists" in the Missouri press corps. 

I am further amused by the idea that if Howard is so lacking in credibility, then why are folks in the media giving a single moment's thought to the identity of someone so lacking in credibility according to their professed view.

But my main point here today is that there are good reasons why some people choose to use pseudonyms. 

First of all, as a result of our efforts at Fired Up to hold certain right wing Republicans accountable for their actions, I have 

• Had people attempt to threaten my livelihood
• Had the reputation of family members attacked
• Seen the business interests of peripheral vendors threatened
• Been the subject of opposition research dumps
• Been the recipient of hate-filled correspondence making cleverly worded allusions to the death of my mentor and best friend in a plane crash
• Had the spokesman for the Governor of my home state compare me to a mass murderer who was responsible for the deaths of innocent women and children
• Been interrogated by the police for attempting to attend a public meeting.

Through all of that, I subscribed to Truman's maxim about hot kitchens, and Fired Up has stayed in that sweltering arena in order to help add to the menu of public discussion.

Now, I have a great deal of respect for many reporters in Missouri, and many of them take serious risks with their careers when they dare point out the truth about the shenanigans of politicians.  However, one of the differences between them and bloggers who do so, is that unless they are in some way reckless, they are very unlikely to lose their job by pointing out the truth about politicians.

There are lots of people who are in a position to write thoughtfully about the state of politics in Missouri who simply can't take the risk of retaliation that is sure to come from certain elements of the Republican party if they do so.  Which brings us to why the Republicans are so frustrated by pseudonyms--it deprives them of the primary tool in their political arsenal--character assassination.

If they can't respond to the substance of a criticism, they simply attack the character of the person making the argument, convince the press to cover the "controversy" rather than the underlying substantive critique, and magically, they have once again slipped through the net of accountability.

But don't get me wrong, pseudonyms are like power, or guns--they are not inherently good or bad, it depends on how they are used.  Clearly, they can be used for good or for evil.

I have nothing but respect for our readers. I believe they are savvy enough to read an argument, and without knowing the specific identity of the person or persons who wrote it, can determine whether there is any merit to the argument or not.  Apparently some of our brethren at other media outlets lack that faith.

And one final point on pseudonyms--I might suggest that those journalists troubled by their use do some reading in American History.  (Benjamin Franklin: An American Life and Infamous Scribblers would be good places to start.)  Franklin was known to have used Silence Dogood, Polly Baker, Richard Saunders, Anthony Afterwit, Martha Careful, Alice Addertongue and others.  James Madison used Helvidius and Robert R. Livingston.  Alexander Hamilton wrote as Publius, Pacificus, Catallus, Americanus, Metellus, Horatius, and others.  Samuel Adams went by Philo Patriae, and Paces, as well as Vindex the Avenger, and Determinatus.  John Adams used Novanglus, Sui Juris, U, Davila and Humphrey Ploughjogger.  If you consider these men cowards, then by all means continue the refrain about the "cowardly" use of pseudonyms.

So if the reporters in the state have rooted out all the corruption and have informed  their audiences about every important piece of news that they could possibly benefit from, then I certainly understand if they then move on to the important topic of speculating about pseudonymous bloggers.  Otherwise, I am not sure I see the point. 

And as for the right-wingers who complain about pseudonyms, your right wing lawyers' associations is called the Federalist Society--presumably a reference to the Federalist Papers--all of which were initially published under a pseudonym.