If you view any news article online, some server, somewhere, will record your computer’s IP address. If you want to leave a comment after you’ve finished reading, the site may ask you to register.
An article earlier this month in the Pensacola News Journal raises a new, internet-era question: is this user data fair game for reporting?
The story starts in November of 2006, when conservative activist Jeff Bergosh was elected to Pensacola, Florida’s county school board. Less than two weeks later, “Godzilla” was born, when Bergosh anonymously registered the nickname to use Web forums hosted by the News Journal.
Over the next year, Bergosh, cloaked as Godzilla, railed against teachers’ unions (“obstacle #1” to educational reform), other board members (after voting 4-1 against Bergosh, he could hear their “spines breaking in unison”), and his fellow forum posters (“Get the F out and don’t let the door hit your a@@ on the way out”). He offered opinions rarely expressed in public education: compulsory high school should be ended and truants abandoned. Once, during a teacher pay dispute, Godzilla even went so far as to as to heap praise on his puppet master: “we can count on Board member (Jeff) Bergosh”.
News Journal reporter Sara Rabb saw the postings, and noticed that Godzilla and Bergosh tended to use similar phrases. According to executive editor Richard Schneider, Rabb then asked the online managing editor, an editorial employee, if there was any way to find out if Godzilla was Bergosh. A quick check of the paper’s Web registration information showed that whoever registered Godzilla had used Bergosh’s home email account.
As Rabb did more reporting, she found out that Godzilla’s real world identity had been widely assumed by others. In fact, the school board’s spokesperson had broached Bergosh about the matter over lunch in September, and recalled warning him that the secret was “pretty much common knowledge.”
When Rabb confronted Bergosh with the information, he admitted that he was Godzilla. But then, according to Rabb’s first article on the matter, published October 4, Bergosh called a few hours later to deny that he was Godzilla. Once the article was online, Godzilla took to the forums “officially denying” that he was Bergosh. Eventually, Bergosh finally, definitively, came clean on a local radio show, where he asked “Why am I targeted for identity ‘ouster’ ? The context in which the forum was originally intended was to provide anonymity for ALL that chose to participate.”
While all that back tracking can’t have done Bergosh any favors, he did find many users on the paper’s website—who almost without exception go by pseudonyms—who agreed that his privacy had been unduly broached.
“How dare you ‘out’ someone who is anonymously posting here,” asked the aptly named My2Cents.
“Shame on you, PNJ. This is the lowest of the low,” wrote whetherguy.
“I see this as a breach of the system,” wrote Edward from Milton.
So who’s right here?
It’s unlikely readers would have complained if the facts were a little different—say if the News Journal had revealed that Bergosh was using a shadowy front organization to flyer cars outside a PTA meeting.
But it’s just as easy to construct a hypothetical going the other way, especially since the outing was done, in part, with information that the paper obtained outside of news gathering. What if the paper had written a story about a local budget official bouncing a subscription-renewal check, or about hard times at local car dealer after they reduced an ad buy?
When asked about the ethics of sharing registration information in-house, Schenider admitted that he hadn’t considered the issue, especially since News Journal editorial employees were responsible for the user database. But to me, that seems like an argument to change who’s in charge—what paper would have a reporter maintain the subscriber list?
Legally, the paper is safe; its Gannett-drafted online terms of service clearly state that they can reveal users’ personal information for any reason and without notice.
But most users have probably never seen, let alone read the seven page document. And before the paper exposed Godzilla as Bergosh, most posters assumed their pseudonyms would be protected.
Schneider himself (posting under his real name) took to the forums to reassure posters that this was not about to become a routine reporting avenue. But he defended his actions. “We believe public officials should not be doing the people’s business in private,” he wrote, adding “I don’t buy the violation of privacy argument, sorry. Not for a public official.”
It doesn’t appear that he’s convinced the angry, typing crowd.



I agree with the PJN’s opinion that they made no guarantee of anonymity. Moreover, a public official has an obligation to conduct their business in public (this seems so basic it barely deserves comment). While there may be merits to a free and unaccountable transaction of information, there are several disadvantages to it as well. This is just one of many examples of just that environment. Alternatively an environment that requires people to stand by their opinions may, on the whole, yield more carefully considered and constructed thoughts. The New York Times Op-Ed page would be far different if the authors were not required to sign their names. It does not appear to have stifled the diversity of opinions, scope of topics, or anything else for that matter. So why is it necessary to separate the thought from its author? What possible reason could this serve? A case in point, would these people find the need to scream their opinions across the internet if their words carried a consequence? I need not look further than next article in today’s CJR – Salih’s Story.
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/post_64.php
-Jim Hockaday
Posted by Hockadje
on Tue 16 Oct 2007 at 08:30 PM
He assumed his comments would be anonymous which obviously was a mistake. Also, anonymity may mask poor conduct but does not excuse it.
Posted by Cuz
on Wed 17 Oct 2007 at 10:37 AM
The posting forum in question was set up for at least 2 or 3 years. Within the last year the Pensacola News Journal started including the legalese
disclaimer. Since Godzilla signed on to (at the very least) an 'implied' anonymous post, it is extremely unethical for a newspaper to 'out' him and publish his personal email address on the front page for an anonymous forum which they created.
Perhaps there is an arguement that an elected official should reveal his or her identity when posting on a forum, but in this case he was not bound to do so nearly as much as the PNJ was ethically bound to protect his identity. And certainly not create the news with front page headlines.
This is simply lazy, vindictive journalism. The PNJ ran an editorial regarding the school district which Burgosh ripped to shreds through his postings. With their feathers ruffled the PNJ went on a witch hunt and now we have a full scale war going on down here. There have been at least 2 full front page news stories and several large editorials with various PNJ reporters defending their paper's indefensible actions.
The question shouldn't be whether you agree with Godzilla's views or not or even if an elected official should or shouldn't post anonymously. The blame squarely falls on the unethical practice of the PNJ creating news where there was none and 'outing' a man's identity from the same anonymous source they created.
Posted by bucaman
on Wed 17 Oct 2007 at 11:47 PM
The problem with this article, though it does address the ethical lapse of the Pensacola News Journal and its editor Richard A. “Dick” Schneider, is that no one, including the Columbia Journalism Review, has asked Jeff “Godzilla” Bergosh his side of the story. Bergosh has stated he will not discuss this matter with the local media, as they are biased. Here is what CJR needs to know and what they do with it is there prerogative.
Since I have blogged on their web page, I have followed this very closely, including every blog made about the stories. Here is what is important: PNJ’s cub reporter Rabb used PNJ database information to ascertain that Jeff Bergosh was Godzilla. She confronted Bergosh with this on October 2, 2007. According to Bergosh, who has gotten no uncensored media time from any media outlet in Pensacola, he denied being Godzilla to Rabb (This information is evidenced by a public record email from Bergosh to his fellow Board members denying he admitted to being Godzilla dated October 3, 2007, which email has been on the Blogs, but has not been deemed worthy to show to the public by the local “fair” media). More damning to the PNJ is another public email sent to all Board Members from Ronnie Arnold, the Superintendent of Schools PR man, also dated October 3, 2007 which states Arnold and Rabb both had suspicions that Bergosh was Godzilla. The key word is suspicion. On October 4, 2007, that “suspicion” had become Bergosh “admitted”, which Bergosh vehemently denies. The Dick Schneider and his hackneyed henchmen take great pleasure in lampooning Bergosh on denying this, which is false. Bergosh denies ever admitting being Godzilla to Rabb and Arnold and maintains the PNJ “outed” him, becoming the news and not reporting it. Of course, Bergosh receives no fair coverage of his side. To see his thoughts on this matter, go to www.jbergosh.com.
So CJR, ask some tough questions of everyone, including Bergosh. Get the emails I have told you about, as they exist. And know, the real story is so called fourth estate has muzzled free speech and does the public have to worry more about being persecuted by the media than by the government.
This is the huge ethical issue of our time. It will come up again. CJR, do not be behind the power curve on this issue, lead.
Ritchie Rich
Posted by Ritchie Rich
on Fri 19 Oct 2007 at 08:31 AM
I am just curious about the subheading- I don't quite understand- "An Internet crack in the Chinese wall."
Godzilla was a Japanese creation- and your article is not about "China's Great Firewall," so what exactly is it meant to be referencing?
Posted by Manchurian Candiate
on Fri 19 Oct 2007 at 03:44 PM
Unbelievable!!! The Inquirer rag they have for a local newspaper, the Pensacola News Journal, is now running a cartoon caption contest to further smear this man's reputation.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION
How low will this yellow journalism reach?
Posted by bucaman
on Mon 22 Oct 2007 at 09:20 AM