Idaho print media, welcome to the web.

Kevin Richert of the Idaho Statesman has an interesting post up about anonymous bloggers, “commenters” and online civility in general on the web. In his piece, he (and also Steve Ahrens over at the Idaho Business Review) call on bloggers and commenters to use their real names if they want credibility in this online world.

Richert:

Ahrens might not have known it, but he hit on a raw nerve in our internal discussions. Some of my newsroom colleagues openly dislike our online comments — and the anonymous rhetorical food fight that seems to follow every sensitive or controversial story. And a couple have questioned why I quote anonymous bloggers and commenters on our Opinion pages, in our daily "Other Voices" feature.

[...]

If I had the answers, I would be an anomaly in our industry. I will admit I put more stock in bloggers and commenters who identify themselves — which is why, when I post comments on my blog or others, I always identify myself.

Journalist have their names, they build them up and sell them, that's what they do -- nothing wrong with it, it is their chosen profession. They get paid to write stories, columns, blog posts and attach their names to them. We do what we do because we feel passionate about what we write about, be it sports, local, state or national politics, beer, wine or an infinite list of other subjects. We mostly do it for free and have other "real" jobs, which is where you see the anonymity come into to play, especially when you're a Liberal in this red of a state.

I'm kinda/sorta anonymous, a lot of people know who I am, but most don't. I don't take a lot of steps to protect it, but I don't advertise it either. I just don't think that who I am has that much bearing on what I write about -- that and death threats (yep, it has happened) really aren't that cool either. But there are a few bloggers in Idaho who require anonymity to write, that's just the nature of our state and what they write about. Do they deserve any less credibility? I don't think so. I think they bring insight into subjects that the rest of us don't have; they have credibility in my eyes because I choose to give it to them.

A novel idea would be placing credibility in what one writes not who they are. Actually, first off, think about why you give anyone credibility on the internet. One thing that is important to realize about about blogging or bloggers is that anyone can, and will do it. The same demographics of liars, thieves and bullies that exist in the real world also exist in this digital one. If there is one thing you can ever teach someone about the internet it is this; "just because it is on the web, doesn't mean it is so". That is Web 101.

Am I special cause I write about things I enjoy on the internet? Not at all. Do I think that what I have to say is important? Not really, and most often someone has said it better and more eloquently than I ever could. Does anything I say have any weight? Mostly not, I'm just a random guy who pays 15 bucks a month to a blogging service so people can read what I have to say. I'm still sittin' here trying to figure out why people read what I write in the first place -- Lord knows it is not my grammar or spelling or wanton wit. I just started doing it in '04 and have kept at it -- it just so happens that I enjoy it. Some Idaho bloggers have been doing it for much longer than I have, and operating just fine without nonsense like a "blogger code of ethics".

I find it funny now that the newspapers are starting to expand into the online world they are the ones calling for rules and changes in how the blogosphere operates. It's like the kid on the block who is demanding the rules to the neighborhood tag game be changed so he doesn't get pushed and get grass stains on his knees.

(sorta off the subject)

On that note I do applaud the expansion of the print media into the digital world. I've come to enjoy The Spokesman-Review's HBO and Eye on Boise. D.F. Oliveria' s Huckleberries Online is one of the better journalist-run blogs, and of course, Betsy Russell's Eye On Boise is the go-to blog about all things Idaho Legislature. I'm also a pretty big fan of the Idaho Statesman's new online presence. I enjoy reading Kevin Richert's blog Commentary, I also enjoy Michael Deeds' Words & Deeds and Patrick Orr's The Beer Nut.

Now I do understand the Statesman's staff's displeasure with allowing comments on stories, but rest assured, because of the page views it surely generates it is most likely not going anywhere, and it probably shouldn't. I will say that the Idaho Statesman's comment sections are filled with the most inane, bigoted, racist vile that I've seen on any local website. But ya know what? There are a lot of inane, bigoted racists that still live in Idaho. Being allowed to post comments anonymously has taken how they talk in their own homes and backrooms into a public forum -- I think that is a good thing; it let's people know racism and a host of other feelings are still well and alive. That's just a part of the wild west of the 'tubes, mean stupid people say mean and stupid things. You either ignore it or let it eat at you, it is really a pretty simple choice.

Of course it hasn't been all successes for Idaho newspapers trying to make their mark on the web; the Idaho Press-Tribune is continually trying and stumbling to get their site to take hold, but I'm confident they'll figure it out. They did just introduce a new feature "Valley Chatter", we'll have to see how well that goes over. However The Idaho State Journal has just been a miserable failure at their online endeavors. It is definitely not a cakewalk.

(back on the subject)

In short; the only credibility or weight you bring to a subject is the credibility or weight readers are willing to give you -- whether you're anonymous or not. The brilliant thing about the web is that there are no rules -- that's the way it has always been and that's the way it should remain.  It continues to be a vastly interesting and entertaining social experiment, one that is fun to observe, and be a part of.