Thursday, February 05, 2004 :::
At the Corner, Jonah Goldberg complains about "anonybloggers", largely in response to an aside by Andrew Sullivan that "Atrios" called Nick Kristof "human scum", but "is immune from personal attacks because he's anonymous." Here's what the G-man says:Frankly, I think Atrios and other bloggers who are too chicken to put their names behind what they say are cowards and, to a large extent, losers. I wonder whether NRO contributor "Jack Dunphy" knows how Jonah feels. Jonah continues:Moreover, readers who think anonybloggers are heroes of some kind should do a quick moral inventory. If it's wrong to insinuate something without proof, surely it's wrong to throw around insults without having to face the consequences. He has something of a point, but not enough of one.
Look, if "Atrios", or "Lily or Kate Malcolm", or our own "Eric Grey" start throwing around unprovoked personal attacks, then they're jerks, and neither Jonah nor I have to read what they write. If Maureen Dowd or Ann Coulter or Michael Moore do so, well, they're jerks, too.
Ultimately, decoupling one's blog persona from one's real persona has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages (to the blogger) are that one's personal reputation and one's blog reputation don't interfere with each other. The disadvantages are that one's personal reputation and one's blog reputation don't interfere with each other. To anyone besides Dean and me, "Eric" has very little credibility, since he only exists as a half-dozen blog entries and a Yahoo! address. But he also avoids heat from the boss.
The "Malcolms", on the other hand, have some credibility for me because I've read their stuff for more than a year, and have some limited knowledge of who they are, or at least how they write. I don't know them as well as I would if I'd met them and knew more about their personal lives, but they don't have the status of the crazy man on the street. If I ever happen to meet "Kate Malcolm", she'll either have to give up her anonymity or start from scratch with me, unless she turns out to be, say, Clarence Thomas.
Now, maybe some people put too much faith in anonymous bloggers. Certainly, if somebody considers them -- as a class -- to be "heroes of some kind", that's kind of weird. Not necessarily Norman Bates weird, but at least Richard Simmons weird. But that's more of a problem with the reader than with the blogger.
Ultimately, I think it's odd to characterize anonymous bloggers as a group as either "cowards and, to a large extent, losers" or as "heroes of some kind." Those who hide so they can throw rotten apples at passers-by are cowards, and those who hide so they can discuss politics but still have a chance at tenure are -- well, not necessarily heroes, but not automatically suspect. An anonymous blogger revealing corruption in the French government might be a hero, if not much of a shock.
For the record, I read Ann Coulter occasionally when I'm feeling snarky myself; I never read "Atrios" -- not as a matter of principle, but because I have enough things to read -- or Dowd, or Moore; and I'm not sure "Lily", "Kate", and "Eric" are above personal attacks, but I think they're all less likely to engage in such behavior than I am.
UPDATE: Jonah has backpedaled a little, not disowning his original comments, but recognizing that they were too broad.
::: posted by Steven at 12:58 AM
|
