On Saturday, National Review Online contributor Ed Whelan revealed the identity of pseudonymous Obsidian Wings blogger “publius” as John F. Blevins, a recently minted professor at the South Texas College of Law. The two bloggers had argued before about issues relating to Obama’s nomination of Harold Koh, and most recently, those relating to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor; Whelan outed Blevins in a post that responded to the most recent criticism that Blevins had leveled against him.
The outing has caused a small uproar online. Blevins explained that he blogged pseudonymously to keep his professional and private lives separate from what was essentially a hobby, adding, “if I had wanted my name out on this blog, I would have done so. It should have been my choice.” Whelan’s initial response was that “setting aside the extraordinary circumstances in which the reason to use a pseudonym would be compelling, I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision.” He has since apologized, calling it an “ill-considered disclosure.”
Looking beyond the specific circumstances of this case, what do you think? Does outing a blogger cross an ethical line? Is there an ethical line when it comes to pseudonymous or anonymous blogging? Or is it fair game, simply the reporting of a fact (as an NRO colleague of Whelan’s put it) that anyone has a right to reveal?
I'm not certain it crosses an ethical line but I do think it is extremely short-sighted and socially stupid to out someone purely for vengeful and petty reasons. Also, re: "extraordinary circumstances": really? And "compelling," really? It sounds like Whelan is using the same language one would use to discuss journalistic ethics re: anonymous sources and the language lawyers use to discuss levels of judicial scrutiny to discuss his decision to prolong a disagreement with a blogger who blogs as a hobby.
#1 Posted by anonymouslostcause, CJR on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 03:50 PM
Whelan outed publius because in retaliation for criticism, and did so with a nyah, nyah tone. IMHO it was over the line. I think it's fine for bloggers to use a pseudonym, just as most blog commenters do. You have to judge the quality of the writing and your agreement with the viewpoint of the blogger, not whether he/she uses a pseudonym.
One time my son asked how I could trust someone on a blog who writes under a pseudonym, so I asked him exactly who writes the editorials in his local paper -- or the NYT, who hide under a cloak of anonymity? What's the difference?
#2 Posted by msmolly, CJR on Wed 10 Jun 2009 at 09:11 AM
if you don't want your blogging pseudonym to be unmasked then cover your tracks better.
There is nothing wrong with unmasking this blogger.
Keeping his private and professional persona separate ... yeah right, sounds like compartmentalization of the worst sort.
#3 Posted by michael benton, CJR on Wed 10 Jun 2009 at 04:04 PM
Who is Whelan to determine the "extraordinary circumstances in which the reason to use a pseudonym would be compelling"? Blevins's reasons for anonymity are his own, and don't require any explanation. His explanation that he wanted to keep his private and professional lives separate are reasonable in that he doesn't appear to breaking any laws, planning any terrorist attacks, or performing any other subversive activity for which his identity could be rightfully revealed. Whelan's apology just doesn't cut it, in that he is incapable of determining the damage he may have done to Blevin. I say two thumbs (and toes) down.
#4 Posted by Buddy Baker, CJR on Wed 10 Jun 2009 at 10:43 PM
On the bright side, publius did get an apology; I didn't, when it happened to me.
But yeah, it's wrong - and particularly so, if - to riff on Buddy Baker's comment - Whelan didn't make it a point to know all of publius's reasons for remaining anonymous, beforehand.
#5 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 01:33 AM
Many, many people are "outed" everyday on blogs and forums and usually by somone who wants to remain anonymous.
Explain that to me.
#6 Posted by Bill, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 11:39 AM
The question is oversimplified. Various parts of the blogosphere have different rules about pseudonymity and anonymity. It's important to consider these traditions before asking if something is right or wrong in a specific situation, or leaping to judgment. For example, some young people online have been advised for years to use pseudonyms and conceal personal information as a safety precaution. Some bloggers post about things that could get them fired or ostracized, like being homosexual. There is a long tradition of nom de plumes in both politics and literature. Using a pseudonym is not necessarily bad or a sign of cowardice or evasion. It may be a very smart decision. On the other hand, readers of blogs have to be savvy about what they're reading and how to evaluate this information. Just as in news, where we use anonymous sources with good reason. Same kind of evaluation needed.
Thanks for discussing this.
#7 Posted by Dana Sterling, CJR on Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 01:09 PM