Before Nobel laureate Al Gore invented the Internet, the mass dissemination of the news was typically accomplished by print, radio or television, in that historical order. Journalistic standards were meaningful (I’m going back a ways, here), and the news media made an effort to report the facts accurately. This may come as a surprise to Gen. Y, but I am not kidding. Opinion was reserved for the editorial page, and public reaction and comment was solicited. When public comment was received, an effort was made to ensure its legitimacy by requiring that the commenter disclose his or her name, address and telephone number. Many media organizations still require this; for example, newspapers will not print a letter to the editor without what they feel is a valid name and address. I would submit that most of them are more scrupulous in this regard than they are in objectively reporting the news, holding their readers to higher standards than themselves, in many cases.
Requiring those who choose to address the public through mass media to disclose their identities serves several valuable purposes. For one, many people behave differently in public that they do in private. This is not necessarily hypocritical; it may be vestigial civility, if not outright respect for the members of the audience. Fear of embarrassment may contribute to this temperance; private demons expressed publicly tend to embarrass the demonizer more than the demon. In addition the old “count to ten” rule has long afforded reason a chance to keep pace with emotion.
The advent of instantaneous electronic communication has made this problematic. at best. Not only are we able to communicate our reactions instantly, we are able to do so anonymously. I speak, of course, of the “weblog,” or “blog,” for short. Anyone can write anything, anonymously. Many blog sites police entries for obscenity, but none seem to police for incivility. In addition, such entries seem almost magnetic; ugliness begets ugliness until one is left wondering who these petty, spiteful people are. Perhaps it is man’s nature to think the unthinkable; it is said that even the saints have thoughts that make the angels blush. However, the rules of polite society used to require that a gentleman (or lady) make such comments face to face, not, as it were, behind one’s electronic back. Sir Winston Churchill famously remarked that “[w]hen you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”
The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists provides in part that “Journalists should . . . [i]dentify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.” While this does not explicitly address the identification of letter-writers or blog-posters it at least seems to imply an obligation to identify the sources of information that is conferred the ostensible legitimacy of appearing in print. While this wouldn’t necessarily find application in genuine public blogs, shouldn’t it apply to blogs sponsored by major media organizations?
Samuel Johnson seems to have foreseen today’s blogger, when he wrote the following:
When he had provided for his safety, by impenetrable secrecy, he had nothing to combat but truth and justice, enemies whom he knows to be feeble in the dark. Being then at liberty to indulge himself in all the immunities of invisibility; out of reach of danger, he has been bold; out of the reach of shame, he has been confident.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the free exercise of speech, or of the press. . . .” However, these rights are superseded by the public interest in certain circumstances (e.g. falsely crying “fire” in a crowded theater). Another exception is provided by the libel (written) and slander (spoken) laws, which provide legal redress for the making of an untrue, negative statement that is (at least) implied to be factual. It is unfortunate that this seems to describe so many blog comments, whose posters are shielded by their anonymity, which, to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, gives them both the boldness and the shamelessness to say anything. It is time for this to change and it is incumbent upon those in the media who desire to retain at least the perception of integrity to begin the process.