Our last blogger, who wrote under the name “Deep Background,” has been deep-sixed.

Not by us, mind you, but by himself. As you may have noticed, our anonymous government blogger bowed out after a flurry of e-mails that questioned both his credibility and his right to blog under a pseudonym.

From our perch, all that attention was simply fabulous. You just can’t buy advertising like that, we told Deep Background. After all, what’s the point of blogging if no one’s paying attention?

But Deep Background tired of the fight over his identity; in fact, he grew increasingly worried that someone would eventually unmask him just for the kick of doing so. And when that happened, he would no longer be able to write impartially and critically about government communications without the very real fear of losing his day job.

Which, after all, was the point of calling him Deep Background in the first place.

For us, the arguments over whether our blogger could be anonymous came down to this:

If we don’t know who he is, how can we trust what he’s telling us?

To which we reply: How exactly do we know who’s who out there in cyberspace, bloggers or otherwise? These days, any fool can make a pretty Web site. Does this mean that if Deep Background wrote under the name “Bob Johnson,” everyone would have felt fine? Men and women have been writing anonymously, or under a pen name, for as long as anyone’s had anything to say. And they’ve had their reasons, most of them good.

Ultimately, people have to make up their own minds about the credibility of a commentator. We had hoped that Ragan’s reputation for producing quality speakers and writers would lend some instant credibility to Deep Background, and that his words would take care of the rest.

But there’s a more important principle at work here. The whole idea of blogging is that anyone, anywhere, can start up a blog and spout opinions and observations. A blog is the ultimate demonstration of free speech; it’s the high-tech soapbox in the middle of Bughouse Square. You can choose to listen, heckle or debate, or just walk away shaking your head.

For anyone to suggest that bloggers have to follow certain rules would seem to violate the very notion of this particular art form. It’s like those people who say you’re being unpatriotic if you criticize the government. Kind of misses the whole point, doesn’t it?

Our colleague Shel Holtz, who took particular offense to Deep Background’s anonymity, knows more about blogs than most. But he’s on the wrong side of this debate. Of course, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the right to speak his mind. He is, after all, a blogger.

So now we’re looking for a new government blogger, anonymous or otherwise. Government communication is tough and presents its own special problems. We want someone who will write, without fear or favor, about those challenges. It’s not a blog about politics; it’s about the very interesting politics of government communication.

If you’re interested, or know someone who might want to give it a go, drop me a line at jimy@ragan.com.

Finally, we’d like to clear up one rumor about the identity of our short-lived blogger. From his picture on the blog, many of you said that Deep Background looked a lot like Harry Anderson, the star of the sitcom Night Court.

So now it can be told.

It was Harry Anderson. The Department of _______ is lucky to have him.

Jim Ylisela
Group Publisher
Ragan Communications

A release out of New Jersey about the arrest of three men in connection with the shooting of a police officer said that one of the suspects had “a criminal record that includes convictions for burglary, receiving stolen property, and eluding police.”

Any idea what’s wrong with these two statements?

The answer can be found in the Media Relations section of the United States Attorneys’ Manual, which says that “statements, admissions, confessions, or alibis attributable to a defendant” is among information that “could tend to prejudice an adjudicative proceeding.”

Also not recommended is dissemination of “any information concerning a defendant's or subject's prior criminal record either during an investigation or at a trial.”

In addition to discussing what information can be released, the manual gives guidance to law enforcement officials on assisting media and discusses the balance of the need for confidentiality with the need for a free public trial.

Of course we all know that history is littered with scoundrels who have published anonymously (or have used pen names). Losers like Samuel Clemens, Louisa May Alcott, and Ben Franklin immediately come to mind. Time has shown that their credibility has been severely damaged because they didn’t use their real names.

I resisted writing this entry because I don’t want to become another pr blogger who blogs about blogging—which, frankly is a rut a good number of pr bloggers have gotten stuck in. But the folks at Ragan finally convinced me to address the issue because a number of people have questioned my veracity. So here goes.

When Ragan approached me about blogging for government pr professionals, I said the only way it could happen is if I wrote using a pen name. (Ragan editors suggested that I do it anonymously, and they're the ones who came up with the idea for the photo with the hat that caused BL Ochman to wonder whether Matt Drudge and I had been separated at birth.) The reason I gave for not wanting to use my real name was that I did not want to be approached by producers of political talk shows asking me to come on their show as a government pr expert. This happened a couple of times after I had written articles for a pr trade, and I was asked to join a panel to discuss questionable methods federal agencies had used in getting publicity for their programs.

So, let me get this straight, Mr. Producer…you want me, a career government pr person, to speak as an authority on what political pr people in other cabinet-level departments are doing? I don’t think so… The full impact of this may be lost on you who do not work for the federal government, but let me assure you, it would be bad…very bad…to become the guy the talk show producers call because, “well, you write a lot about government pr!”

There has also been some speculation in the blogosphere that I might lose my job if I were outed. I don’t think that would happen. But I probably would be pressured to give up the blog. And I don't want to do that, because I think I have some really useful things to share with other pr people at all levels of government who may be struggling.

So, for those pr bloggers who are looking at me with stink eye, cut me a little slack. This is the only way I can do this effectively.

And for those of you who gave me the benefit of the doubt, namely Trevor Cook at Corporate Engagement, Eric Eggertson at Mutually Inclusive PR and my fellow Ragan blogger Steve Crescenzo at Corporate Hallucinations, thanks for being so gracious.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

a) Take down the reporter’s inquiry.
b) Go to the appropriate wonk and get the “correct” answer.
c) Call the reporter back and parrot what the wonk said.

This approach is fine when the reporter is asking for something simple, like the number of people who visit the department of motor vehicles on a monthly basis. But if it’s something more complex that may involve the expenditure of large sums of taxpayers’ money—not to mention the reputations and careers of many individuals whose names are attached to it—don’t settle for the “correct” answer from one source. Remember, the wonk may have his own agenda.

Like a good journalist, confirm and corroborate. Seek to understand “what’s been going on.” Find out who the key players are (I hate the word “stakeholders”). Political people—including city, county, state, or federal officials—may have very strong positions that may impact the issue. Ask your government affairs or legal person to review your proposed answer and give you some input.

If you still don’t feel confident, elevate the matter—to the head of your agency, if necessary. But don’t settle for the “correct” answer. You’re paid to understand the nuances.

I was baffled that they were baffled. Certainly, as veteran reporters in Washington, they had dined with quite a few government sources. And my guess is that my reporter colleagues offered to pay most of the time.

So why had they never encountered a government spokesperson who insisted on paying his own way?

Seems to me that if reporters pick up the tab, they are doing so primarily because of your government position, not because they like you. While it's true they may not want a government contract, they do want something of value from you--information.

So, according to government ethics laws, they would probably be in the category of someone who has “interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties.”

Even though you're allowed to dine on a reporter’s tab if the bill is under $20, my personal opinion is that government media professionals should never accept any such treats.

Why not?

Bottom line: if reporters wine and dine you, you will feel in the back of your mind like you owe them something. And that’s exactly why they’re paying.

Go Dutch.

I have heard pr people say, “If you can’t say it on the record, you shouldn’t say it at all.” The reason they say this is because they confuse going off the record with leaking.

Releasing confidential information is never a good idea, period. And it should never be your reason for going on background or off the record.

Background

Going on background can legitimately accomplish at least two things. It can allow you to explain a complex situation in detail without having to worry that little bits and pieces of your explanation are going to end up in quotes—out of context—with your name attached, thereby making you look like an idiot.

A background interview can also allow you to bring in an a subject matter expert who knows more than you without having to worry that he or she is going to inadvertently make an off-handed comment that will get into print and get you both fired.

Off the record

You can go off the record when you know the public information the reporter needs is out there, but the organization you represent is not the appropriate source of that information. (If you can steer the reporter to existing documentation, then, by all means, do so.)

Used properly, background and off the record interviews can serve you and the organization you represent well. But if you leak information you’re not authorized to, be prepared to accept the consequences, including potential firing and criminal prosecution.