When I first saw the blog I wondered, "Is that a picture of THE GUY?" Cause if it is, his anonymity is shot. I mean, it wouldn't take his wife or his mother to figure out who that guy is based on his photo. Am I right?

Harry Anderson is Deep Background?

Oh good, another non controversial subject. I'm siding with Shel on this one. I've ranted about what really constitutes a "web log" in past notes, and those comments stand. A blog gets its very definition, and value, and even gravitas, from the PERSONAL aspect. No (real) person, no blog. If the CEO has his blog written by Susy the Ecom Queen, it aint a blog anymore. I hate the idea of taking everything posted on a website and calling it a blog to be like the cool kids.

Maybe it's just semantics to some, but to me it's a credibility issue.

It's gotten to the point where in the bulletin boards I frequent, or in the comments field of various blogs I read, "anonymous" postings are disregarded at best, and often flat out ignored by me.

If *they* cant be bothered, hell, neither can I.

Part of my skeptical nature I guess. While I know that it's easy enough to pretend to be someone/something you are not while online, the folks that hide behind the veil of anonymity hold no currency with me.

Steve N

I have to go with Shel on this one. He's right. The blog is personal by definition and I don't think you want to p...off such a nice, smart guy.

Anonymity in individual posts is one thing; anonymity that sits in the same corner predictably is another. It's just another blog that loses a few credibility points - not because I don't know the poster's NAME but because I don't know his/her background. It wouldn't change my life much if I knew it was actually Ignatz Weeblehoff, a person I've never heard of.

Many of the highly-visible people in media have fake names anyway. I can live with just a label too: anyone know the actual character name of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi?

Okay . . . but what about the lost opportunity? If he can't be anonymous, he can't write the blog. So we just lose everything that he has to offer to government communicators?

What if we didn't call it a "blog"? What if we just said we were doing an anonymous column by a government communicator . . . and oh, by the way, you can comment on it if you want to. And it'll have an RSS feed. And it will link to other resources.

But NOOOOOO . . . it's not a "Blog," no sirree, no way, nope. Not a blog. Just a real good online column.

Then what?

Steve

I'm with Shel. And to answer your question, Steve C, yes. I think it's better to scrap the whole idea than to have an anonymous blogger.

As others have said, it's all about credibility. This guy (assuming it's a guy) might be the most upstanding, honest, good-hearted, principled person in the world. But I don't know that. So I can't trust what he (or she) has to say. The veil of anonymity protects him (or her) from criticism, backlash, etc., so he/she can say whatever he/she wants and there is no accountability.

When I was editor of various corporate publications, I encouraged (and received and printed) letters to the editor. But I wouldn't publish any that were unsigned. Now, I might withhold a name in the extreme case that the author had a valid point that just had to be made, regardless of attribution, but if a letter arrived unsigned, it went into the trash.

Actually, I believe this highlights one of the problems of communication in the larger sense these days. People have become accustomed to not being held accountable for their opinions -- through anonymity or by claiming "freedom of speech" regardless of how outrageous their ideas might be. With freedom comes accountability, but I believe we're losing that point.

Like you, Steve, I'm absolutely sure I've pissed some people off down through the years by some of the things I've said or written. But at least I'll stand up and take the heat for it -- whether I turn out to be right, wrong or just nuts.

I won't read "Deep Background" because the author's anonymity makes his/her opinions pretty darned shallow.

To clarify, I agree with Ignatz... errr...Tom H, its not the name itself, but the fact that the individual KNOWS there is some inherent risk in posting and chooses to do so anyway that make it so interesting. If there is the possibility of some blowback, well, your facts better be right. Opinions better be well thought out.

OK, I can stop now because I just read Roberts post - and he made the very points I was going to make.

So, what he said.

And one more thing. We already have enough credulity, especially on the internet. What we lack is credibility.

Neruda

Okay, Roberto, and Steve, et. al.: Let me ask you the same question I just asked Shel, on his blog:

What if an employee came to you, the Director of Communications at Some Big Company, and said:

“I want to do an online column on the intranet. I want to talk about employee issues, the business of the business, and other important topics. And I’d like to the column to be interactive, so that others can join in in the discussion. Let’s get employees talking about the issues facing this business.”

With the letter, the employee sends some sample columns . . . and they are excellent!! I mean, this guy is writing from the employee perspective, and you know employees everywhere will appreciate this.

THis is the perfect place to start a blog, right? But there’s one catch. He is afraid for his job, and doesn’t want to use his real name. Not that he’s writing anything crazy . . . but for maybe his boss is an ass, or maybe he just had a baby and doesn’t want to take ANY risks whatsoever.

Do you tell him he can’t do his column . . .or his blog, or whatever we choose to call this thing?

It just seems harsh to me to say that you can NOT have an anonymous blog, EVER. Obviously, signed ones are better . . .but sometimes circumstances don’t allow it, and you shouldn’t scrap what could be a very valuable tool just because of the anonymity issues.

It's easy for us, Robert, to sit back and tell employees they have to sign their names to letters or blogs or anything else they do. But we are asking them to gamble their livelihoods. And that doesn't seem fair to me.

Steve C.

When faced with an opportunity to write a column under a pseudonym, I was tempted. I thought, "Wow, I could really LET IT FLY if I didn't write under my own name."

Then my husband wisely pointed out, "If you can't write a critique of your workplace under your own name, then you probably shouldn't be writing it." I agreed and decided to write the column straight up. Sure, it's curbed my ability to rant without end, but I am still able to rant when necessary, but I'm also accountable for all that I write. (Oh, and I've failed to mention the writing gig to my CEO and I hope he never discovers it.)

I think the same applies here.

OK--- so I am going to go against the tide here and disagree with my good friend and co-worker Steve N. The "anonymous source" has always been my Achilles heel- at least in the realm of journalism/communications-- I have others. In many cases, just because someone chooses to remain anonymous, does not mean the information should be automatically debunked by the reader. And yes, I will concede that for every long-term example where such a source was used to launch an investigation or to right a wrong (including the now demystified "Deep Throat"), there can be a counter-argument for how an "anonymous source" made up his/her story for only vindictive reasons without using a grain of truth. In the world of journalism, that is what you have reporters and editors for. So, I guess I am OK with an anonymous blogger in situations like this where someone at Ragan must know the secret identity of "Deep Background". Crossing to the other side of this very thin line, the loss of credibility for me as a reader is for the non-affiliated blog site that just pops up on the net. The kind where some unidentified person without the association of a company, business, etc.. associated with his/her blog starts to preach to me about the "evils of company x" while hiding behind a cape and cowl.

Kudos' to David Murray for highlighting the long running Fortune columns of "Stanley Bing". While not a blog, it is a great example of a column in a major publication that has a devoted readership and nobody officially knows who he is!

One final thought-- while it has been mentioned that having the name adds value, would anyone concede that using a name can also bring about a preconceived negative viewpoint? Where you, as a reader, automatically feel yourself disagreeing with a position that is being taken by the author because you do not agree with his/her political, social, economical, etc... views? And that had you not know who the author was before reading, you might have felt differently?

I think the analogy of unsigned letters to the editor is a good one (see Robert J. Holland's posting above). In this case, presumably someone at Ragan knows the identity of the writer (so it's not unsigned), but the name is withheld because someone has determined it is an "extreme case that the author had a valid point that just had to be made, regardless of attribution." (see Steve's point that the blog wouldn't exist if it was attributed). If you allow signed but unattributed letters to the editor, is this any different?

With all due respect to Ragan, which is a respectable organization indeed, I don't believe there is any great truth to be gained in the blog of an anonymous government employee. Deep Throat helped expose the criminal activities of the president of the United States. Of course there are times when it is more important to get the truth out than to identify the source of the truth! But this is not Watergate and I don't anticipate "Deep Background" is going to spill any beans that we couldn't buy elsewhere. Come on, "Deep Background," whoever you are: Show some "Deep Backbone!"

Gee, there are 22 posts to this particular blog (23 counting this one) and yet, the most Deep Background has been able to garner is two posts (and the second one was his response). This after all the attention his blog (assuming DB is a he) has garnered here and apparently in other blogs. Hmmm.

If one of the purposes of a blog is to stimulate response and discussion, I'd say DB has a ways to go - anonymous or identified. Despite the identity issue, there's apparently a style and/or content wrinkles that need to be ironed out. Give me good content and thoughtful discussion and I'll be a loyal reader. (Which, of course, is why I frequently check in here.)

An anonymous blog is more about the Ragan "How can we make more money the easy way?" business model than sponsoring a blog for government workers. Taking a medium which is accountable to no one but the blogger and making it anonymous is opprobrious. Even if it takes something like real work, find someone with the cajones to put a signature to his opinion. From what I've read of Deep Background, one can get the same knowledge watching Law & Order and it's more entertaining.