on Blogging Anonymous

Evey Hammond: Who are you?
V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.
Evey Hammond: Well I can see that.
V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your powers of observation I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.
~V for Vendetta

One thing I love about the expat bloggers community is that they take themselves seriously. Frequently, they make for an entertaining discussion, occasionally meaningful, although sadly, most times, they lack the substance to go with the enthusiasm. I’ve long maintained that this has to do with their miserability.

The latest thing was something that had been coming and going for as long as the history of blogging. Fatih poked on people blogging anonymously – in a somewhat accusative manner singling out the expat blogs – and they responded. Greenstump, Unspun, Patung and John Orford all came up with passionate responses.

I personally don’t care whether you use your real name or not. Most times, I’m not even curious.

That being said, it is important to note that when you’re making allegations or presenting opinions, it would be useful to know where you stand (eg. Organizations that you’re associated with, any financial interests you might have, or any other associations you might have with the parties/issues you’re talking about.) In certain subjects, it would be useful to know if you’re at all qualified to make an opinion. Traditional media have disclaimer policies as part of standard journalism ethics. The argument being, readers should know if the authors have any personal interests in having their opinions forwarded to the public.

One would want to point out to Stanley Bing in Fortune magazine who writes with pseudonym and the Economist magazine which attributes no by lines to any piece, even the op-ed pieces, but then again, these guys have the magazine name and credibility to account for their stands.

I could understand Fatih’s irritation in dealing with bloggers who presented themselves as some sort of quasi news service with obvious (and often obnoxious) leanings, and yet hide behind the veil of anonymity (indonesiamatters is a good example). Not that I care much, I think they’re just being a coward.

Readers aren’t dumb. You can always count on them to distinguish quality work and hopefully, to think for themselves if they’re at all reasonable.

Geenstump referred to Orwell in his latest post, himself a pseudonym, just as Voltaire, Lewis Carroll and Mark Twain, nobody even remembered their real names anymore. Edgar Allan Poe, Ambrose Bierce, Stephen King and countless others have all at some point wrote under different names.

In the rarest form of mildly interesting argument, Patung argued that the Federalist Papers were published anonymously – somewhat alluding to the ‘Indonesia is a dangerous place to speak your mind’ argument.

Which I think is complete bollocks. It is one thing to choose to hide your real names. It’s another to make up a Stalinist ghost to account for your cowardice.

Indonesia has one of the most liberal press law in the world (which not without problems in itself, but we’ll get there later). We’re no longer live in opaque Soehartoesque police state and people are free to write whatever they want. For any of you with any experience whatsoever of the press life 20 years ago, then you’d know that life is a whole world of difference these days where freedom of opinion is concerned.

This country leaves a lot to be desired. There are many things to improve and God knows, there’s a whole load of shit so wrong, most of us wouldn’t even know where to start fixing them. Expressing opinions and providing substantial arguments would be a good start in getting a grip for a better place.

But really, old man, you’re hardly Alexander Hamilton and your silly little news collage is hardly even comparable to the Federalist Papers. James Madison and Hamilton were arguing for the necessity of a federal government in their vision for America as a nation, not publishing random snippets of secondary sources in a twisted manipulative opinion to score higher with Google adwords. And well, the papers were published anonymously, but once the polemic began, Hamilton and Madison and others stepped forward to account for their opinions.

I personally don’t care whether you write anonymously or not, so long as you do it well, we’ll read it. Otherwise, well, you know, the internet is full of trolls and jerkoffs like you. It’s the beauty of the Brave New World.