Blogging and Ethics

When is it o.k. to hide behind anonymity to hurl offensive names at another human being? Is there a time, even perhaps not under the veil of anonymity, that one should be congratulated for calling another names such as "ho" and "skank?"

A woman whose name is Rosemary Port, it seems, has no issue with calling Liskula Cohen such names. Port assumed that she was acting under the protection of anonymity but after a court order, Google revealed the owner of the offensive blog.

The fact that we have got a look into what is possibly a petty argument between two acquaintances should not take from the bigger issue coming to light here. Should anyone have the privacy afforded them to anonymously slander and call names to another?

I would be inclined to say no. Bloggers have questioned their craft from time to time. I believe that if you are to criticize someone, you should do it in the open. Hiding beind the veil of secrecy or anonymity is cowardly.

I understand there are times when, in the interest of safety, it might be necessary for secrecy. Maybe an example of this would be a jury on a gang-leaders trial.

But for this blogger, Rosemary Port, to cry foul at being exposed as the creator of such slander is pathetic. I think she should step up and take her medicine. The big brother, Google, couldn't protect her from her own idiotic words directed at another individual.

This question of anonymity came up when I started my blog. I seriously considered whether I should go anonymous or not. While I do see times when anonymity could be productive I decided to go front and center. I am content with this decision.

Rosemary Port decided to do something that she felt the necessity to have anonymity, it seems to me. Her intent was to blog in anonymity for the purpose of launching insults. Maybe I am wrong.

There are two truths I am interested in seeing in this story. There is no place in society for this kind of slanderous language being used to describe human beings. And there is no privacy on the blogsphere.

Iran and the Media: Twitter, Blogger, YouTube

Twitter, Blog, YouTube - Where would we be without you?

Nico Pitney, speaking on The Rachel Maddow Show, got his 15 seconds of TV fame when he was interviewed about his blogging on the situation in Iran. Pitney blogs at Huffingtonpost.com. Rachel Maddow, said she uses his blog as a source for her own stories and insights into the Iran story.

This may seem fine on the surface but the hype that is surrounding the uses of "new media" for divulging information about Iran recently should be taken seriously. Call me a skeptic but any media tools that generate hype must be viewed soberly to get them in perspective.

Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are singing the praises of new media for it's part in this Iranian "show of the people." But what is it that is so great about this media over the traditional media? The story becomes the instantaneousness of the new media. Pitney is blogging continuously (he says that he will be sleeping tonight) and is also claiming to confirm all his sources. "Or at least make sure that the information is from multiple sources."

How can instant media coverage be confirmed? How can any traditional media source be confirmed? Do you know what is not shown on the camera footage from YouTube and Blogger? These are the same questions that we ask of the traditional media. These questions should not disappear just because the footage is "obviously" amateur or because it is footage that happened seconds ago, or it is "forbidden" (by the Iranian authorities).

The State Department, according to many sources today, asked Twitter to postpone their scheduled maintenance shut-down so that the people in Iran could communicate with each other presumably to organize demonstrations. Could we interpret this meddling in the dealings of a media/social network as meddling in the fate of Iran? That is not to say that communication is a bad thing. It is a good thing to communicate.

But perhaps the US is assuming that Twitter had more to do with these democratic demonstrations than it did. Reports indicate that this kind of "revolutionary gathering of hundreds of thousands Iranians" has not happened since 1979. I assume that it did not take Twitter to make it happen in '79. Is the hype about "new media's" part in this all because the US is having difficulties with the Iranian administration?

Let us keep things in perspective. Yes I will view the amateur footage and be happy to see footage from Iran, but I will be aware that I am getting a particular opinion/view of the events. Yes I will watch and listen to Rachel Maddow but I am disappointed that she is using a blogger as a source. Yes I will listen and view many different media but I will never feel that I have the whole story. Yes I will watch Fox too (I did not manage to see their coverage of 'the new media and Iran' - I presume that they have covered it- although I did tune into Reilly and Hannity).

Lets not get carried away with the Twitterization of the world. Remember Twitter is trying to figure out a way to monetize their product. We are informed that media persons are not allowed free access to the inside of Iran. But the story will get out in the end. Twitter and Blogger and YouTube might be great instruments of the democratization of the media.

Let new media grow up and mature before we start expecting it to be the instrument of world change.

Let us calm down and get it all in perspective.