Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Nameless, faceless bloggers -- and why they occur withing and without the media

At another blog there is a thread about posting comments from those who don't sign their names.

One theory says that the anon postings are from those in the media. By and large, I don't agree.

Because one is in the media is not an excuse to use anon, UNLESS, you're media in Fiji. Fiji has had a military take over. The general / dictator has had a thing against bloggers and free press. So, anon bloggers and postings are needed, else one would be jailed or worse.

I venture that there are 100 or so that use, with monthly postings, the "Anon" handle. Perhaps 10% are media.

If there are anon posters in the media -- what the hell are they scared of? Are they chicken to stand by their words? Are they spineless?

For example, Jon Delano (KDKA) and Bob Mayo (WTAE) use their names, generally, I assume. Others in the media do as well.

The media has a job to do -- and that is to report. If the media people leverage influence to sway the news in ways they desire by using "anon" postings on blog comments, then there are concerns that should be pulled into the open. Does anyone want to pick a bone with media people posting in "anon" ways here?

My conclusion: I feel that they don't do that. It doesn't happen much.

Media posting in regular ways as anon is too bush-league for even the media around Pittsburgh.

Anon postings come from people who are citizens and fearful of powerful ones who are in government and in hiring capacities for other reasons. And, that fear is justified. And, those people are NOT generally 'media folks.'

Finally, I'm certain that the media folks READ blogs and do research. But, they'll be less engaged as people who 'post.'

Agree, or not? Use the comments and tell us why.

No comments: