The Anon vs. Real Name Blogging Debate
1-liner, Blogging, Media Gossip/Musings May 16th. 2009, 3:30pmMedia Musings: Bob Kravitz of the Indy Star (remember that guy?) recently went after some anonymous local bloggers who have been giving him the business. There’s some history between the two, and it seems like Kravitz just wishes people would show themselves by name before lobbing grenades. As a blogger who was anonymous for quite some time before the big reveal, we’ve dealt with both sides of the equation: Blogger might stay anon because he has a job, and until the blog can bring in enough money, it’s too risky to put your name out there and risk losing said job. From our experience, anonymous critiques had some impact; moreso with a name attached to them. (Stampede Blue)
5 Responses to “The Anon vs. Real Name Blogging Debate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:44 PM
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa the bloggers call me names whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
May 16th, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I could care less about the identity of the messenger when I am reviewing the quality of the content of the message.
The trouble is that most media circle-jerks are too caught up in their media circuits with name-dropping to care as much about the quality of their content for the fans. Note that I sad THE fans not THEIR fans, and hey if they have their own fan base great, but then they should not call themselves “sports journalists” but rather “paid entertainment shills.” This is sort of like the difference between someone with solid acting skills and the many “performers” or “entertainers,” with the true measuring stick not found in mere box office receipts.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:50 PM
well said.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Well, I was given the choice when I first signed up here.
My choice to use my true identity was primarily because I hope to get paid to write, and it didn’t make sense to have my most high-profile writing not be attached to me.
But, I think it does add a layer of credibility and responsibility to be out there and stand by what you say.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:38 PM
From Paolo, your unofficial “Frank The Tank” TBL Sergeant-At-Arms, at the debate podium:
Such claims of more credibility when a writer posts his or her name are true only to the extent that one is not just goofing off, which of course is something one can do more easily and credibly on blogs instead of in old traditional print media. Furthermore such posts are funnier here too.
I do not agree with the inference that posting with a name adds any more to responsibility, for blogs allow the common fan with no career interests to post the true vibe of the fan and common man/woman as is NOT reported in traditional “free” media for reasons having usually to due with conflicts of interest with regard to one’s media/entertainment career, company management, advertisers, or ownership.
If the traditional “free” media were responsible, THEY would state such conflicts of interests as those in financial media do now by either discretion or law after Enron, but they do not do so. Until the advent and development of the internet and blogs, such practises involving the traditional media having true public critics did not exist but to rare, small degree.
Now not only did the internet presence help the public carry in a new president that no one in the media liked until MSNBC jumped on late in the primaries, a fact of course overlooked as usual by the traditional media empires, but content on the internet drive the traditional media now such that many folks like me spend more time online than watching cable. And find me anyone under 40 who still reads a newspaper except perhaps the Sunday edition in only the biggest Metro areas?
In about 2000, media “panels” on TV would have discussions about the credibility of the internet. By 2004, Wikipedia had come about and those panels with laptops in front of them on air were questioning not the “credibility” of the internet but of certain popular sites as if their own “credibility” was untouchable all along. Now even the likes of a Jim Cramer has had his ass kicked publicly.
Most of the media whiners about anything internet are those over age 40 who had thrived at length before YouTube up to about 2005, so most of their “criticism” is really not credible because it is just a matter of sour grapes. If they had any truth or balls and were really a likeable to the degree of air time they are granted, at this point THEY would have their own blogs instead of whining about whatever online.