Persecuted?


By Krestia DeGeorge
Published on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 5:42 PM AKDT

A little before 7:30 a.m., Thursday, August 2, near the intersection of 14th Street and Alice Street in Oakland, a lone masked gunman approached 57-year-old Chauncey Bailey, shooting him three times at point-blank range with a 12-gauge shotgun. Despite the efforts of paramedics, Bailey died on the scene.

Bailey was the editor of The Oakland Post, a weekly newspaper that served a predominantly African-American audience in the Bay Area. At the time of his death he’d been investigating the finances and power struggles of Your Black Muslim Bakery, a local business poised to enter bankruptcy.

Steer over to the website for the Committee to Protect Journalists (www.cpj.org) and you’ll see that in just the first three months of 2009 11 journalists have already died in their line of work. The total tally for 2008 was 41; in 2007 it was 66. And these are only confirmed cases.



I’m thinking of these dead journalists right now because of two related mini-controversies that erupted over the last week. The first was a “special recognition” award bestowed on Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny by the Alaska Press Club. Kilkenny, you’ll remember, wrote an email to friends and family about her observations of Sarah Palin’s years in Wasilla City Hall, shortly after Palin had been nominated as a vice presidential candidate. At an awards banquet over the weekend, Kilkenny claimed that she’d feared for her safety and that of her family after the email went viral.

Also over the weekend, Spenard Democratic Representative Mike Doogan, in his constituent newsletter, revealed the identity of the hitherto-anonymous blogger behind Mudflats.

In a lengthy post responding to her outing, Mudflats addressed the issue of anonymity briefly, with some hypotheticals, saying she might’ve been a state employee, or married to someone in the Palin administration (which she frequently criticizes). But this one caught my eye: “Maybe I don’t feel like having a brick thrown through my window.”

I could be way off base here, but I spent several hours this week trying to dredge up reports of U.S. citizens who’ve been threatened, injured or attacked for doing what Mudflats does—expressing straightforwardly liberal opinions in better-than-average prose on a personal site. I couldn’t find much.

What martyrs like Chauncey Bailey, or Don Bolles—a Phoenix newsman who died in a bomb blast for investigating the mob—have in common is that they were unearthing new facts. Opinions can and do make people uncomfortable, but it’s facts that are truly dangerous to the corrupt or powerful. Knowing the fates of those who truly suffered for their work makes it irksome to see publishers of popular, widely held opinions wrap themselves in the cloak of the persecuted.

Mudflats’ supporters like to bring up Benjamin Franklin, who wrote anonymous pamphlets in the colonial days before the American Revolution. If our founding fathers enjoyed the ability to speak freely without attaching their name to it, why shouldn’t we?

But Franklin really did have a reason to be fearful. In his day, expressing the wrong opinion really was a crime. Maybe that’s why the founders included freedom of speech in the First Amendment—so folks like Franklin wouldn’t have to shield their identity.

And even Ben Franklin was a wuss compared with journalists in Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia and other nations who go about their work faithfully, knowing that at any time their work could land them in prison or a shallow grave.

I think I’d be a wuss compared to those journalists, too. But mainly I’m just glad I don’t have to make that choice. I’m glad that I live in a nation where I can speak freely without fear of official retribution—and with full recourse to the protections the state provides in the event of other retribution.

I don’t have a particular dog in this fight. I’ve met Doogan once and he helped judge our Super Shorts short story contest earlier this year. I’ve never met the woman behind Mudflats, but she wrote a thoughtful piece about one of these columns, which I liked well enough to quote in a subsequent piece.

I tend to agree with Doogan’s philosophy that if you wish to speak your mind in the public sphere, you ought to put your name to it; I sign all of these columns—not because I have to, but because I think it’s the right thing to do. And free speech includes the freedom to divulge someone’s identity. On the other hand, I’m not sure what he thought doing so would accomplish.

But none of that is really to the point (who cares what one more person thinks?). What troubles me is that the same folks who in Mudflats’ comments section have constructed an elaborate defense of the supposed “right” to anonymity (by basically confusing the words “anonymity” and “privacy” with one another), and talked high-mindedly about its importance to democracy, are using it for such high-minded contributions as this: “Doo Doo Doogan/Is making me gag/Doo Doo Doogan/Has a new poo flag!” Anonymous speech is protected, sure, and should continue to be. But what is it really getting us as a society?

In Mudflats’ comments, it’s getting us a lot of poo jokes and name-calling, along with a little thoughtful commentary. Harmless enough. But as some of Mudflats’ own fans point out, anonymous commenters on other blogs (conservative ones, natch) are agitating for revolution, calling for liberals to be shot. Would those commenters have the courage to do so if they had to place their names? All too often, this is the kind of public discourse that anonymity buys us. The irony, of course, is that the hateful speech that flourishes when commenters’ anonymity protects them from consequences, if left unchecked, has the potential to create the type of environment where expressing opinions really is dangerous.

After Chauncey Bailey was murdered, journalists from around the Bay Area picked up his story and kept investigating it. They didn’t use pseudonyms. That kind of courage in the face of danger—a small echo of that which was in evidence in Selma and Birmingham, or at Lexington and Concord—is what underpins a true democracy. Most of us aren’t called to take such risks. Let’s be careful before we cloak ourselves in the mantle of those who have.

krestia.degeorge@anchoragepress.com

Comments

82 comment(s)

    Kyra wrote on Apr 7, 2009 1:23 PM:

    " continued -

    But, my job is to try to help that individual figure out what they're really feeling and express it, and if necessary, re-write the story. If I were to minimize their feelings and emotions, tell them that as Americans, we get to grieve for 3 days, that there is no need to hide behind a mask, or keep their opinions to themselves. If I say that we are free and have free speech, that I know best, I would be guilty of violating my ethical code and I would be harming my clients. "

    Kyra wrote on Apr 7, 2009 1:18 PM:

    " I find it so fascinating that this conversation is dividing down not only party, but gender lines (not just here, but everywhere). Grant me the generalization as obviously there are exceptions here in this comment section. My point, is that yes, sometimes we fear too much, sometimes we need to stand up and be counted, sometimes more is accomplished if we use our real name, but, as a counselor, generally the first emotion I see, is not the issue. I don't know what brought that person to see me or their story. "

    Just a thought wrote on Apr 7, 2009 9:38 AM:

    " An article in Guyana's paper just ran an editorial about Mudflats.

    stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/04/04/influential-nobodies/

    This is a very accurate portrayal of political bloggers and their importance. "

    Just one more thought wrote on Apr 6, 2009 10:31 AM:

    " @Kyra (Apr 3, 2009 7:24 PM comment)

    You bring up an excellent point regarding personal fear, and my question is:

    Who gets to decide whether your fears are rational or not? You? Someone else? Who? "

    Just one more thought wrote on Apr 6, 2009 10:26 AM:

    " Part 2:

    I see a pattern: The flights, the stalking of Celtic Diva, mudflats outing and now this.

    All are threats of intimidation in order to quell our freedoms, including free speech. All are from right wingers.

    This is what you support, Krestia, because...you've decided the definition of 'Persecution' and you've decided Mudflats doesn't fit into that category.

    PS - figures out how to post the website:

    conservatives4palin.com/2009/04/pat-dougherty-has-completely-lost.html "

    Just one more thought wrote on Apr 6, 2009 10:15 AM:

    " Part 1:
    @ Krestia - Ideals like free speech are a great subject for a Philosophy class - but this is the real world.

    Case in Point: C4P website. Apparently they don't like it when people call Palin "white trash" (calling Levi those names is acceptable), now they want to suppress free speech by closing down the comments section of your ADN. Note that the author was banned from ADN.

    Your site doesn't not allow me to post the website...It's "Conservatives 4 Palin". Blog title: "Pat Dougherty Has Completely Lost Control of the ADN Website". "

    Just a Thought wrote on Apr 5, 2009 12:42 PM:

    " @Heather -

    What you describe is actually called "backing up opinion with facts". Did AKM ever claim those words were hers? If she did then *that* would be stealing. No offense, but did you ever write a paper/essay in college? Did you use facts to back up your opinion?

    So what you consider "reprehensible" is, in reality, "responsible writing". "

    Robert Meyerowitz wrote on Apr 4, 2009 9:07 PM:

    " Mudflats, 4.4:

    "See the awesome rainbow snail at the top of the sidebar? He comes to you courtesy of LivingPlaying.com, our newest advertiser. LivingPlaying is a very cool toy store that sells wooden, eco-friendly, Waldorf and Montessori friendly toys. Jen runs the show, and and she’s a mother of three boys. LivingPlaying.com is the result of her search for toys and products that are beautiful, environmentally friendly, and purposeful...."

    Old media used to label this "advertorial," to protect readers. "

    Rich McClear wrote on Apr 3, 2009 10:24 PM:

    " There are studies that show that people are more fearful than they need to be. In surveys they usually overestimate the crime rate, for instance. Headlines and TV news "if it bleeds it leads" add to this atmosphere. That is why "Take back the night" demonstrations are so important. It is important not to overplay fear and let it control our public discourse. I urge everyone using a "nom d' net" to reconsider, come out of your personal closet, and speak fearlessly so we can change things. "

    Heather wrote on Apr 3, 2009 10:02 PM:

    " But I think that mostly what' really reprehensible is that she just steals copy from people. I mean, she cuts and pastes huge swaths of stories and puts them on her blog and ads a little commentary to it.

    It's like stealing a song, or a poem, or a painting and adding a few cords, or lines, or color to it. And she's trying to take money doing so. Isn't anybody else outraged by this? "

    Heather wrote on Apr 3, 2009 9:57 PM:

    " Kyra:

    Thanks for responding. I'm not sure it's a violation, but the fact that her husband runs that PAC that she was encouraging others to donate to, and the fact that the PAC was certainly targeting Palin, and the fact that mudflats didn't reveal her ties, leaves a feeling that what was going on was less than transparent. "

    Kyra wrote on Apr 3, 2009 7:24 PM:

    " Regarding fear of harassment or just fear. Different people fear different things and for different reasons. Our life experiences and current situations create our frame of reference from which we view the world around us, and from which fear - or the lack - is generated. No one can determine if an emotion (fear) is appropriate for someone else, although I notice that men frequently downplay womens' fear. Just saying. "

    Kyra wrote on Apr 3, 2009 7:20 PM:

    " Heather:
    I, of course, may have read it wrong. But I spent some time reviewing campaign finance law today, and I believe what you are referring to is called free speech. The organization (blog) is not actually raising money, just urging that you give money to someone else. Churches are perhaps a bad example as they are specifically not allowed to advocate for a person (but can for an issue) because of their tax exempt status. It does come down to who gets the money. "

    Krestia DeGeorge wrote on Apr 3, 2009 6:59 PM:

    " @ Just one more thought:

    In the same way that constant harping by a few far-right-wing bigots convinced otherwise reasonable citizens to fear their law-abiding Muslim compatriots (one discouraging example: salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/01/09/askthepilot304/index1.html) or the cycle of doom-and-gloom news about the economy depresses consumer confidence, further harming economic growth.

    Occasionally, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" is more than just a platitude.

    On another note, I was trying to provoke some thoughts on these subjects, but did nowhere near as good a job as David. Check this out: thinkalaska.com/2009/04/koans-for-mike-and-mudflats.html "

    Just one more thought wrote on Apr 3, 2009 6:31 PM:

    " How does invoking fear of harassment make the perpetrators more powerful?

    The statement is completely illogical and simply not true.

    Is that also true of Ben Franklin, then? No. It allowed him to continue to express his ideas....without fear of retribution. "

    Just a thought wrote on Apr 3, 2009 6:14 PM:

    " part 2:

    Define acceptable retribution. Hate mail? Having Your home address published? Your business? Death threats? Where do you draw the line? Where do Palin fans draw the line? Who gets to draw the line?

    It was Mudflat's risk to take and hers alone. "

    just a thought wrote on Apr 3, 2009 6:12 PM:

    " Part 1:

    The point has never been the frequency/ scarcity of the threats, but their severity.

    "Not just angry, but vicious and threatening" is the phrase Kathleen Parker used to describe the mail she received after her critical article of Palin appeared. The threat is legitimate.

    Speaking freely without fear of retribution is indeed the point and Mr. Doogan infringed on that by outing mudflats.
    ....... "

    heather wrote on Apr 3, 2009 5:52 PM:

    " Kyra and Burney:
    If a church or radio program or a journalist or a blogger was urging people to GIVE money to a particular group that was trying to influence an election, that WOULD violate campaign disclosure laws. "

    Monica B wrote on Apr 3, 2009 4:32 PM:

    " I'm with Rich McClear on this one. People have every right to write/speak/opine anonymously. But the responsibility of keeping one's self anonymous falls on one's self. Anyone who wants to know who is behind the monitor has just as much a right to try and figure it out. "

    Krestia DeGeorge wrote on Apr 3, 2009 3:31 PM:

    " Am I downplaying the seriousness of threats or harassment? I'll admit that's possible.

    But I don't dismiss them altogether, because I don't doubt there are instances, even if they're rare. (If anyone reading this thread can share specific politically-related threats from Palin supporters or anyone else—confidentially—we'd love to follow up on them: editor@anchoragepress.com.)

    My point here is not the frequency or scarcity of harassment, but that repeatedly invoking fear of it, as some commenters have done, only makes the perpetrators of it more powerful.

    Refusing to show fear—even if it involves some risk—renders them less so. "

    Kyra wrote on Apr 3, 2009 2:04 PM:

    " Heather:
    "It's a little thing called campaign disclosure laws...so the people know if something is an organized attempt to influence elections... "
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    There is a difference between organized attempts to influence elections and campaign finance law. Millions donated anonymously (<$200) and legally, to the last campaign.

    Many groups organize to influence society - politically and otherwise. Churches come to mind. Talk radio. Etc.

    Mr. Doogan abused his position to force his opinion- not law, not ethics, not right or wrong, not journalistic standards- on someone else, and used government resources to do so. "

    just a thought wrote on Apr 3, 2009 1:12 PM:

    " It is becoming evident that the author purposely downplays the serious threat of danger that critics of Palin face.

    Poor research? Political Bias? Either way, this article is neither fair nor balanced. "

    Burney Willis wrote on Apr 3, 2009 12:33 PM:

    " Bloggers aren't going door to door to sell papers, aren't dropping their posts at eateries across the Anchorage bowl, and aren't on the ballot the first Tuesday in April/November. They aren't journalists.

    You can't have it both ways. "Opinions can and do make people uncomfortable, but it’s facts that are truly dangerous to the corrupt or powerful." If opinions only make folks "uncomfortable," why "out" bloggers? Who made Doogan the arbiter of who gets "outed"? Obviously, criticism makes him very "uncomfortable."

    Sounds like double blogger-envy to me.

    You can both do better. "

    Heather wrote on Apr 3, 2009 12:14 PM:

    " Proffitt:
    It's a little thing called campaign disclosure laws. Maybe you've heard of them? One of the very many idea behind them (and those paid for names you see below commercials and campaign literature, and the reason why you have to fill out your name on a form when you donate), is so the people know if something is an organized attempt to influence elections. Oh, yeah, and that transparency stuff.. (Heavy sigh) Aren't you a former journalist? "

    Rich McClear wrote on Apr 3, 2009 11:45 AM:

    " Mudflats became a public person by posting on a blog. When someone becomes a public person, making comment on officials and issues of public importance, s/he needs to expect that people will want to know who she is. Doogan is, at heart, a journalist and journalists like to find things out and publish them. It is perfectly within the free speech rights of anyone to try to determine and publish the name of anyone who is making public comment in a public forum. To deny that right is denying the right of free speech. "

    Steven J Heimel wrote on Apr 3, 2009 11:30 AM:

    " Do you have some reason to doubt that Anne Kilkenny feared for her safety and that of her family? If so, what is it? If not, why did you use the word "claimed?" I think the situation might be a little more serious than you realize, young man. "

    denim21 wrote on Apr 3, 2009 7:42 AM:

    " Did any of you commenters actually READ Mr. DeGeorge's musings??? He doesn't make any REAL arguments against anonymity anywhere in the editorial.

    His whole train of thought seems to be: "some people use anonymity to threaten or make poo jokes." But none of it has to do with anonymity per se.

    He also "argues" that bloggers confuse anonymity with privacy. But he offers no explanation. Anonymity and privacy are closely related enough to demand a real analysis instead of a throwaway insult. "

    John Proffitt wrote on Apr 3, 2009 1:30 AM:

    " I'M LOST... What is the problem with an anonymous blogger encouraging his/her readers to give money to a PAC? PAC's are just groups registered with the state for raising money to spend on promoting a political agenda.

    So what if the blogger's spouse is in charge of the PAC? Does that violate a law?

    So what if the blogger himself/herself is in charge of the PAC? Is that illegal?

    And if you give money to a PAC because an anonymous person asked you, isn't that YOUR choice?

    I wouldn't do it, but that's MY choice. "

    Diane wrote on Apr 2, 2009 9:34 PM:

    " I have been a regular follower of Mudflats since sarah palin's run for VP.
    I find it an insightful, well written blog.
    I have never felt uncomfortable or pressured to contribute to Alaskan's for Truth. Nor do I now feel uncomfortable with the MudFlat connection Alaska's for Truth, BY MARRIAGE. I did contribute money for
    Alaskan's that were having to spend their money on fuel instead of food. Mudflats was one of the first blogs to show the great need in that area.
    I believe that retaliation and intimidation were the reason's that Rep. doogan named names. "

    Dianne Woodruff wrote on Apr 2, 2009 8:39 PM:

    " Ms. DeGeorge, I wish you had heard some of the threatening things Palin supporters yelled while driving by people waving Obama signs in Wasilla. I know solid long-time Valley residents afraid to speak out against Palin during the presidential campaign for fear of physical harm and/or other retribution. I am no longer a Republican because I don't care to be associated with the unsavory conduct of Alaska Republicans, particularly some of those in District 14. People should have a forum where they feel safe expressing their opinions; those who disagree should attack the content, not writers. "

    PG wrote on Apr 2, 2009 8:00 PM:

    " Makes a person feel like making a donation to AFT, which I have never done..until now. "

    maryt wrote on Apr 2, 2009 7:58 PM:

    " "I’m glad that I live in a nation where I can speak freely without fear of official retribution—and with full recourse to the protections the state provides in the event of other retribution."

    Just as well you don't live in Missouri, then ... where 'possible terrorists' were being targeted because they support politicians like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, gun owner rights ... and are against abortion and gay marriage, etc.! An memo was issued to the MO Highway Patrol to be on the 'alert' for bumper stickers regarding the above. "

    marjtoo wrote on Apr 2, 2009 7:54 PM:

    " 'I’m glad that I live in a nation where I can speak freely without fear of official retribution—and with full recourse to the protections the state provides in the event of other retribution.'

    Just as well you don't live in Missouri, then ... where 'possible terrorists' were being targeted because they support politicians like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, gun owner rights ... and are against abortion and gay marriage, etc.! An memo was issued to the MO Highway Patrol to be on the 'alert' for bumper stickers regarding the above. "

    clark wrote on Apr 2, 2009 7:32 PM:

    " response to this is breaking along philosophical lines -- those who still think we're in a culture of top-down control believe doogan has a legitimate grievance. to those who understand what the net has done to flatten the pyramid, eliminate the MSM as a middleman/tastemaker and give everyone access to information, doogan's act is a desperate, last ditch effort to enforce the previous paradigm, before he goes down with the ship. there's nothing wrong with a good poo joke, either -- ask any 11 year old boy. "

    Dr Chill wrote on Apr 2, 2009 7:13 PM:

    " Pseudonymity, protects privacy.
    Krestia you're the one confused.
    Doogan violated AKM's privacy not by revealing the author's name, but by revealing her private behavior. She writes Mudflats.
    Alaska's constitution protects privacy, your favorite sexual behavior your bad novel, your embarrassing high school love letters, the way you sing in the shower with a bathing cap, your phone calls, email and your diary/blog-
    All private. All protected.
    Even if you publish pseudonymously on-line. Especially if you publish pseudonymously on-line. Privacy isn't lost just because lots of people get very curious. "

    DrChill wrote on Apr 2, 2009 6:42 PM:

    " Blogger-Bob Check your facts.
    AFT is NOT ALL about Palin.
    Collecting donations isn't bad. Its voluntary. Mudflats has a teeshirt business. You can send money straight to AKM. AKM likes Alaskans or truth and supports them. She also supports Native Alaskans, Beluga whales, opposes Wolf bounties, wants the Oil moved safely from MtRedoubt and has a real affection for Brenda the Moose.

    Why are you trying to make into something else?

    If you thought donations were 'funneled' to AFT you could have easily checked your facts, by just reading. You didn't. You're dead wrong. "

    Elizabeth wrote on Apr 2, 2009 6:08 PM:

    " I don't think the real issue here is whether or not AKM could be anonymous, but whether or not Doogan had the right to out her like that. Why does he get to make that decision for someone else? "

    John Proffitt wrote on Apr 2, 2009 5:55 PM:

    " KRESTIA: "What's the cost and value of anonymity to a society?"

    In a free society, the cost of anonymity is minimal. The value is potentially huge. Indeed, what cost? If you think it cheapens society, you're giving anonymites far too much authority.

    Mudflats is a tribal leader. Enemies wanted her identity, thinking they could destroy her power. I guess engaging Mudflats in an exchange of ideas was too hard.

    Anonymity allows society to explore new ideas at low cost. It can lead to vital changes. Prohibiting anonymity entrenches the powerful: aka the Press and the politicians. "

    just a thought wrote on Apr 2, 2009 5:26 PM:

    " Poor research on your part.

    Kathleen Parker (R) wrote an article that was critical of Palin ("Palin Problem") & the next week, wrote an article about the hate mail and death threats she received ("Speak correctly, or build a big bunker").

    She makes a point that these threats are intended to stifle free speech. "

    crystalwolf wrote on Apr 2, 2009 5:15 PM:

    " connie said:"I do have a problem with an elected official using a political/government web site to "punish"- that's unethical. You might want to write about that issue- "
    *****
    YES! THANK YOU CONNIE! How about TWO politicians using STATE websites to intimidate people who speak out against them!
    GINO posts about Frivolous and asinine ethics complaints and doogan uses addresses of his constituents to blab about Mudflats!!!
    YEAH WHAT ABOUT THAT??
    And doogan writes and exposes all the people who wrote to him their email addresses! What about those peoples rights?
    And he was unprofessional in his response. "

    Ben Franklin wrote on Apr 2, 2009 5:10 PM:

    " Nobody here has a problem with Jeanne's husband running a PAC and her asking her readers to donate to it? That shouldn't be disclosed by Mudflats? I can only wonder what the liberals would think if Mudflats was conservative and her husband was running a pro-Sarah PAC. "

    Connie Steeples wrote on Apr 2, 2009 5:09 PM:

    " I find it ironic that "Blogger Bob", "Blogger Man", and others critical of anonymous bloggers (or maybe just AKM) are just that- anonymous.

    As for sally's contention that AKM is in it just for the money- web sites are expensive to maintain. It's very clear that proceeds will go to AKM. If I don't want to donate/buy- I don't.

    This article will be balanced if the writer also discusses the misuse of government property and unethical behavior of Doogan. Use of governmental power to punish one for speaking out should scare all of us. "

    AKGreg wrote on Apr 2, 2009 5:06 PM:

    " There may be some "courage" associated with a byline, or maybe simply a desire for a paycheck or notariety. In any case, when someone chooses to write anonymously, the worth of that writing can fairly be judged by those who choose to read it or not. "Outing" people for lawful conduct has always bothered me regardless of the motive because it presumes the right to take away someone else's desire to remain anonymous lawfully. In short, the problem is not the writing, but the presumption. "

    Connie Steeples wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:57 PM:

    " Your article is reasoned, but I don't agree with your comparison. A blog is personal and about anything- I have read numerous Alaskan blogs, and find Mudflats to be insightful and articulate. I do not have a problem with anonymity- the lack of a name makes the reader focus on the words, the message. There is a long history of anonymous (political, literary) writers in our country-

    I do have a problem with an elected official using a political/government web site to "punish"- that's unethical. You might want to write about that issue- "

    Harry Butkiss wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:46 PM:

    " I immediately thought of the peace protesters in Soldotna, Gary Webb who committed "suicide" for exposing GOP and CIA drug importation during Reagan's junta, the Unitarian Church massacre in Tennessee, and Alan Berg. Anonymity encourages free speech for good and ill.
    What is disturbing is Doogan using the State's resources to hound a citizen. He is a big FAIL for that. "

    Fairbanksan242 wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:38 PM:

    " ------
    Obviously, we're not completely against all anonymity ever... but I have a hard time swallowing the Ben Franklin/Federalist Papers argument when..it ..is then used to make poo jokes and engage in name calling.
    ----
    1st, AKM doesn't control who posts what. 2nd, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The internet has brought about some new realities re: info control--there is less control. It's not a newspaper printed and then done, it's constantly evolving. Point is, you have to do more sifting of irrelevant info online to get to the worthy info and AKM gives worthy info. "

    DrChill wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:30 PM:

    " I feel that its safe to blog with your name, and

    I write with my name attached, and

    Brave paid journalists who choose it as a career write using their name. and

    I think there aren't many instances of repercussions for bloggers, - you should too.
    --------
    I don't believe those 4 assertions of your post.

    The Supreme court acknowledges anonymity as a shield protecting free speech and
    I don't confuse TheMudflats civil well written posts with some of the harmless juvenile remarks made in reply. "

    crystalwolf wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:29 PM:

    " Sally & Blogger Bob
    Is that you Sarah & doogan?
    Mudflats never solicited funds for AFT. AKM just directed us to a site for call to action.
    On the day doogan made his Revelation, her tech staff asked (jokingly I believe) to donate for a new server b/c Mudflats was getting SO MANY HITS ITS SERVER WAS CRASHING!
    So thanks Mike Doogan a lot more people reading mudflats and learning the truth about GINO and YOU! Or should I call you Billy? Muldoon? "

    Maia wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:11 PM:

    " Actually, AK Muckraker's gender has been out of the bag for some time. We were both interviewed in a Minnesota Independent article about Alaskan women bloggers during the presidential campaign, along with Shannyn and Linda. "

    Krestia DeGeorge wrote on Apr 2, 2009 4:01 PM:

    " Phil:

    I don't think anyone really believes that the genie of Jeanne's identity can somehow be put back in the bottle.

    While I didn't feel particularly compelled to name her in the column (which you might expect, if I was really acting as Doogan's apologist), I also don't feel a responsibility to omit details like gender and pretend that that's somehow concealing her identity.

    Lot's of this stuff is debatable, but the outing itself is a done deal. Pretending otherwise will not make it so. "

    crystalwolf wrote on Apr 2, 2009 3:38 PM:

    " AKM doesn't ask for donation's to Mudflats!
    AFT was something different concerned citizens banding together for the truth. Notice the EMAILING THERE," CALL TO ACTION!' I believe on All pro-Palin blogs they tell their readers to go donate for sarahPac/vote for sarah etc.
    AKM did nothing wrong.

    Ronald wrote on Apr 2, 2009 12:19 PM:
    " Cyrstalwolf, I believe you're wrong. Here is a quote from an 11/24/08 blog entry by Mudflats to her general audience: "

    disagree wrote on Apr 2, 2009 3:19 PM:

    " poo poo jokes are not something I seek out for my own enjoyment, but I would say mudflats does provide a place for more substative discussion of the issues if people choose to use it.
    I agree constructing some elaborate arguement involving the founders is a bit much for the issue. "

    Viva wrote on Apr 2, 2009 3:11 PM:

    " Wow, the Anchorage Press should write about Mudflats more often. Look at all the new readers!

    Normally it's so dead in here it's spooky. "

    Silence Dogood wrote on Apr 2, 2009 2:47 PM:

    " Great article, Krestia. I appreciate that you took a balanced approach in looking at this issue. "

    denim21 wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:58 PM:

    " This is the same kind of juvenile analysis so prevalent in journalism today. It reflects a gut reaction to an issue without any second thoughts or any true understanding of the other side.

    "I have a hard time swallowing the Ben Franklin/Federalist Papers argument when the supposed right it invokes is then used to make poo jokes and engage in name calling."

    Really?

    Do you have any problem with people who use the "noble" freedom of speech to justify the likes of Ann Coulter or Al Franken? "

    Philip Munger wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:36 PM:

    " Krestia wrote:

    "I think it's pretty clear from the text that I'm referring to commenters—not the woman who writes Mudflats—in the context of the jokes."

    I had to read it twice before I realized it wasn't a very well-written phrase, but that you probably meant commenters. A little clear - maybe. Pretty clear - certainly not.

    Why did you write "woman who writes Mudflats," instead of "person who writes Mudflats"? "

    Elstun W. Lauesen wrote on Apr 2, 2009 12:45 PM:

    " We live in a small community here in Alaska and it is a political economy my impression is that Alaska dominated by a politically conservative managerial class. Think about the implications of that. According to Doogan, if you or your spouse are vulnerable to retaliation, then you have no right to publicly express your opinion. The hypocrisy among journalists is astounding. They use the shield of the 4th estate to use "anonymous sources". And Doogan had an institution (ADN) that paid him to shoot his mouth off, along with lawyers and editors to reign him in and watch his back. "

    Krestia DeGeorge wrote on Apr 2, 2009 12:33 PM:

    " @ disagree:

    I think it's pretty clear from the text that I'm referring to commenters—not the woman who writes Mudflats—in the context of the jokes.

    Obviously, we're not completely against all anonymity ever (we wouldn't have these anonymous comment sections of our own, if we were) but I have a hard time swallowing the Ben Franklin/Federalist Papers argument when the supposed right it invokes is then used to make poo jokes and engage in name calling.

    The point here isn't to lay down some black and white set of principles about anonymity, just to get people thinking. "

    Kyra wrote on Apr 2, 2009 12:24 PM:

    " Interesting then, that in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission (1995) the Supreme Court said:

    "Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

    Seems to be a whole lot of intolerance going on around here. "

    Ronald wrote on Apr 2, 2009 12:19 PM:

    " Cyrstalwolf, I believe you're wrong. Here is a quote from an 11/24/08 blog entry by Mudflats to her general audience:

    "...climb on board the rowboat, go to Alaskans for Truth, and start emailing and donating. The time has come to hold Alaska’s leaders accountable. The time for action is now."

    Here is a link to the full entry:
    mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/alaska-needs-your-help-in-which-i-explain-that-the-creature-from-the-black-lagoon-is-a-good-guy/ "

    crystalwolf wrote on Apr 2, 2009 11:36 AM:

    " This is a outright lie "She's encouraged them to contribute to her husband's PAC, which seems to exist only to go after Palin."
    AKM has NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER EVER ASKED FOR DONATIONS!
    Some of us in Alaska or the lower 48 have contributed to AFT b/c we want to see GINO's lies exposed for what it is. Doogan responded to all of us in a highly unprofessional manner, and I suspect he was drunk at the time, the only excuse for his professional behavior. "

    Sherry wrote on Apr 2, 2009 11:08 AM:

    " Interesting column, Krestia. I agree that people are more afraid of facts than opinions. So why are local journalists taking the role of opinion-makers here, and not being journalists?

    Whether people should be allowed to blog anonymously about politics is one issue. But I don't see reporters asking questions about what concerns me and many others: Is it proper, ethical, or legal for an elected official to take this kind of action against a private citizen? If this ISN'T retribution against free speech, then what is it exactly? That worries me more than journalists v. bloggers. "

    Rich McClear wrote on Apr 2, 2009 10:45 AM:

    " I am an Alaskan living in Serbia. I worked here under Milosevic as well. If journalists and commentators had given into the fear that Milosevic sewed he would still be in power. Their strength was in overcoming fear and reporting and commenting in public, in signed articles and identified radio broadcasts. Some of them paid a dear price but their courage and openness overcame tyranny. It would not have happened had they remained anonymous. "

    disagree wrote on Apr 2, 2009 10:36 AM:

    " Nicely written post on the subject, but wrong with what you imply.
    The doo doo comments you cite on the mudflats website are from anon commenters, not the person who posts on the blog. If you are against anon blog commenters, rewrite you post. For my own opinion, what difference does it make if mudflats has anonymous posts or not? It is an opinon site, not the source for the latest medical news. Apparently you and Doogan have a problem with blog anon posts. If you don't agree with them, don't visit the website. "

    Syrin wrote on Apr 2, 2009 9:53 AM:

    " Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.
    “You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!” NYT 9/14/08
    It's been going on for a while......... "

    Karis wrote on Apr 2, 2009 7:58 AM:

    " Does anyone find it ironic that Blogger Man posted such a strong comment, and yet remains anonymous?

    Back on track, interesting article, Krestia. Not something I think about all too often, which I suppose I should. I get so caught up in my frustration with the lame news (oh my gosh, a woman got plastic surgery to look like - gasp! - Angelina Jolie!) that I forget there are real reporters out there. "

    sally wrote on Apr 2, 2009 7:15 AM:

    " one other thing: all she does is cut and paste long swaths of stories, and sometimes even whole stories, from others (a big blogger no, no: the protocol is one paragraph,and then a link), and then comments on them. So, she's basically stealing, and making money from it. "

    sally wrote on Apr 2, 2009 6:51 AM:

    " Also, it should be noted that mudflats, or Jeanne, is trying to make money off the deal. She was selling goods and advertising before she got outed, and then the day of the outing, there was a heartfelt post on her site that said she wouldn't be blogging for awhile, but please send her money via pay pal. Now, she's amped up her sales pitch. More goods This notion that's been floated around that she's just doing it out of the goodness of her heart is just not true. "

    Blogger Bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:37 AM:

    " PART 6: Here are my "blogger resources" for this earth-shattering report (man, I only hope I don't get a brick thrown through my window!):

    LINK TO ALASKANS FOR TRUTH: alaskansfortruth.blogspot.com/

    LINK TO MUDFLATS PROMOTING ALASKANS FOR TRUTH: mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/alaska-needs-your-help-in-which-i-explain-that-the-creature-from-the-black-lagoon-is-a-good-guy/

    LINK TO APOC REPORT ON ALASKANS FOR TRUTH: webapp.state.ak.us/apoc/listreports.jsp?elec_key=EK52502139&cycle=2008+Group++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&filer=ALASKANS+FOR+TRUTH&cand_type=Group "

    Blogger Bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:36 AM:

    " PART 5: Linda, I'm not sure if there is any wrongdoing, but this is one argument for why the public deserves to know who's behind some of these blogs. In the case of Mudflats, she has hundreds of thousands of followers. She's encouraged them to contribute to her husband's PAC, which seems to exist only to go after Palin.

    That's not playing fair.

    It's too bad Doogan didn't check this all out. It would have been good fodder to back up his argument. Maybe the Diva and little blogger friends can break this story, hey? "

    Blogger Bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:33 AM:

    " PART 4: Alaskans For Truth has had an anonymous propaganda machine/donating arm in the form of Ron Devon's wife, Mudflats, who herself has been collecting donations and selling advertising on her blog for months now. God only knows where that money has been going. Do I smell an APOC violation?

    So much for transparency. "

    Blogger Bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:31 AM:

    " PART 3: MUDFLATS RESPONDS: The Chair is Camille Conte, and the Treasurer is Ron Devon, both of whom were involved in organizing the rally this fall. This is all public information with APOC. I suspect that either one of them, or another spokesperson will be fielding questions. AKM

    Holy cow! So Mudflats' husband also helped organize "the biggest political rally in Alaska history," as the progressives like to say, AND helped create a political action committee.
    Can't put the Jeanne back in the bottle, can you Linda? "

    Blogger Bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:31 AM:

    " PART 2: Here's an exchange between Mudflats and one of her readers Nov. 24, when Mudflats was asked who was behind Alaskans For Truth:
    READER ASKS: i just checked over at the aft blog. nowhere did i see a name attatched to the site. and although i donated, i wonder if someone is at some time going to ask just who is fronting this movement. there’s going to have to be a point person to answer questions when this thing goes viral. what do you think, akm? "

    Blogger Bob wrote on Apr 2, 2009 1:28 AM:

    " PART I:
    Linda, I'm SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP ALASKANS FOR TRUTH, a political action committee that you are listed as deputy treasurer of! Before you poke me in the eye with your cane, hear me out:
    According to APOC filings, Mudflats' husband, Ron Devon, is listed as the campaign treasurer of Alaskans For Truth. Mudflats blogged on this fact last fall, though she conveniently failed to mention her connection to her husband. But that didn't stop her from trying to get people to donate to this anti-Palin PAC. "

    Krestia DeGeorge wrote on Apr 1, 2009 11:53 PM:

    " John:

    You're absolutely right: First Amendment rights extend beyond journalists, and non-journalists have been repressed.

    Those were handy examples of people facing consequences for expressing something, and since I consider blogging a form of journalism, I thought they were a good fit. If this involved the Alaska Independence Party instead, a parallel to opposition parties in Zimbabwe might've been better.

    But even then, I think my two main questions hold: What's the cost and value of anonymity to a society? And does it cheapen large sacrifices if we cry wolf at small or potential ones? "

    Linda Celtic Diva wrote on Apr 1, 2009 10:52 PM:

    " Rofl---that's kinda funny, since this "news story" is about bloggers.

    Also, this entire incident started because Alaska blogs were also acting as community activists (making news) through Alaskans for Truth...and Doogan was annoyed by answering to our pesky Alaskan readers sending him email.

    Also, I seem to remember that the only story done on Ted Stevens references to Mark Steyn's racist book was mine...on my blog and in my ADN Community Voices column. The Press's only comment? BJ's complaint that the ADN didn't accept Jim Campbell's pro-Stevens piece as a Compass. "

    John Proffitt wrote on Apr 1, 2009 10:40 PM:

    " Nicely done. But to jump straight to dead journalists seems extreme, partially because intimidation comes in many forms. What about psychological abuse? What about an inability to get or keep a job?

    But let's stick with murder. What about people throughout history that have voiced unpopular opinions that were also killed, but didn't have the title "journalist" after their names? You didn't cite any of those examples.

    My concerns begin as soon as journalists set themselves apart from everyone else. Sharing information and ideas is not solely the province of people with printing presses and transmitters. "

    Oarlock wrote on Apr 1, 2009 9:25 PM:

    " Well written, fair and balanced! "

    Blogger Man wrote on Apr 1, 2009 9:01 PM:

    " Poor Linda. Not getting enough attention today?

    Grow up Diva. When you slam somebody, expect hate mail. If you don't like it, then don't throw punches at others. Or better yet, continue on with your "investigative" blogging but don't take yourself so seriously.

    As it is now, you sound like your jealous of reporters. Funny thing is, they aren't jealous of you. They're too busy collecting the news so you have something to write about. "

    Linda Kellen Biegel wrote on Apr 1, 2009 8:22 PM:

    " Of course you guys will never have anything to fear...you've never written or done anything challenge the authority of any of Alaska's corrupt icons. And when some of us have, you've attacked us or played the apologists.

    I mean, god forbid they stop sending you press releases or refuse to have a beer with you!

    If you guys ever end this mutual admiration club, maybe Mudflats or I will show you what hundreds of hate mails and various threats look like. "

    Amanda wrote on Apr 1, 2009 7:51 PM:

    " Krestia:
    What a great column. Finally some real thinking on this subject. "

    jim sweeney wrote on Apr 1, 2009 6:32 PM:

    " Krestia, good job. This is a mature article from a young man. The part about bloggers not having the problems that real reporters face is an interesting fact. I respect what you do. Can I call you a hack now? "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers.

Editors review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   








Reader’s Poll








Contact Us

907-561-7737

Photo Galleries


More Photo Galleries

Submit your own photo