The Corrupting use of Anonymity

The use of anonymity has allowed unscrupulous shadowy operators with much ease, disseminate so many lies to the public through cyber-journalists. Sometimes, it is the cyber-journalists themselves who perpetrate the lies. The interest of the public at large is further short-changed when cyber-journalist themselves want anonymity. I am sure the 'sources' often quoted by cyber-journalists always begin their conversation with the comforting words- these are off the records yes?

We must also be aware that the process of brain-washing the public starts with off-the-record briefings for cyber- newspapermen. If they are then repeated by cyber-journalists who insist they want to remain comfortingly anonymous, then the lies and manipulations and deceptions are expanded to the nth degree.

I'm singling out Mamak Bendahara and Parpu Kari here.  If they have balls they will come to see me on the 9^th of May with convener Nightcaller at the appointed place. Both of them can repeat in person what they have stated in their comments to my face. Maybe to some people, hurling abusive language and expletives is second nature to them. Where I come from, children who do that will have their mouths smeared with chili padi. I am also calling this Pasquale to meet up and say what he said directly to my face.

This is how beltway journalism largely functions.  Hidden agenda seekers are routinely allowed to speak to the public while hiding behind journalist-granted anonymity. Our central objection:   by granting anonymity to these people including to the cyber-reporters, we are able to justify without challenge why certain people did what they did. We allow these people (sources and reporters) to spout utter nonsense, filled with internally contradictory and incoherent claims, without any accountability whatsoever.

Come again, how is this achievable? It becomes possible because we allow them, with zero journalistic justification -- to hide behind a wall of anonymity when making their case.  Whereas its use, is squarely at odds with the rules which journalists claim to affirm regarding the real use of anonymity which I have mentioned above.

Accordingly when we surveyed the abuse of anonymity during these last few years, we can also, in the spirit of what Rocky just did, issue a set of guidelines for when it is appropriate (and inappropriate) to use it. These include:

1. Don't assume anything cyber-journalists tell you is true. In fact, we are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
   
2. Don't print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true. As a mark of integrity, cyber-reporters must refuse the use of anonymity.
   
3. Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whistleblowers offering information that contradicts the official position. Your stand is probably truer.
   
4. don't offer any confidentiality to official spinners
   

To some people then, anonymity confers a license to disparage and abuse any one without shouldering responsibility. I say some people because I can understand the importance of retaining anonymity by some bloggers. That would include those who Rocky mentioned.

I may have misinterpreted Voice's boisterous and garrulous personality as being suggestive of permissiveness but never expected that misinterpretation to be used in such venomous manner by others. I can respect a blogger's wish to remain anonymous and will adhere to his/her wish. As an example I know the identity of many bloggers as they have conversed with me on the internet. They way they conduct themselves do not allow me to read suggestions of permissiveness and I respect that. That would include those who have disparaged me personally.

But I can't the say that for many bloggers who misuse the concept of anonymity. They employ it for twisted ends. It's done in the name of a higher cause and it is best served through anonymity. That is funny- we want transparency and indeed fight for it, but do so with such opaqueness.

It is just a big lie perpetrated with the use of the most undemocratic journalistic tool- the use of anonymity. While pretending to offer a journalistically sound, balanced take on the burning issues of the time, what they are actually doing is to deliberately churn out rank propaganda, drooling hagiographies of those they like, demonizing those they don't like, in order to secure for themselves future career-advancing benefits. How do they achieve that? They do so by becoming a favored message-carrier for the royal court at Putrajaya. Here is the upshot of my arguments:-

1. We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.
   
2. We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack
   
3. Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous.