Sakmongkol answers Rocky-2

The true intention of Anonymity.

The ethics which Rocky are championing? Here are some samples:

Dato' Bendahara said...

sakmongkol is a sick bastard with lousy english n no integrity.

Parpu Kari said...

YO MUTHAFUCKA, KJ ASS LICKER! I KNOW UR GETTING A LOT OF MONEY FROM THAT ASSHOLE, BUT DON'T YOU HAVE ANY DIGNITY, YOU MUTHAFUCKA?

I CAN PUKE WITH UR WRITING MAN!

WHAT THE FOOK UR TALKING ABOUT!

MEMANG POKEMON LA LU PENJILAT KJ!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I did not start the original article so as to arrive at the intention to expose anyone. But with these two comments which typify the usual stock-in trade of these denizens of anonymity, they have only hardened my resolve to do just that. It has now become 'a cause' to expose the hacks and the pompous claimants of purer causes and national interest.

The issues have gone beyond the issue of ethics. After going through the comments, the real contentious issue is the corrupting use of anonymity. How it is used by the typical representatives of Cyber-Guerillas Anonymous (CGAs) such as the above proves exactly why a war must be waged over and over again on writers claiming anonymity. I did not seek to do this, but it will now be a pleasure to expose these rotten apples who night-soil the genuine writers who want to remain anonymous.

Claiming as furthering the cause of national and higher interests, high-level priests of anonymity have been telling readers and mostly those who subscribed to their views that they have no intention of hurting another fellow human being. Such voluntary assurances are very pious and righteous indeed. It's their typical MO.

They then proceeded to faithfully communicate that seemingly pious and self righteous message, such as 'anonymous
sources at Putrajaya have told me/us
there's no intention to harm a particular person's chance to cari makan as Press secretary to the DPM by intercepting his appointment. Their motives are pure. The interception is not a political feather in the cap nor a warrior's earned scalp and it is not personal. The problem, they say, is the country's security may be compromised and that's what they are intrested in.They are, they claimed, protecting the interests of the DPM and by extension, the nation's.

There are several claims here, all attributable to anonymous sources including the reporters who insist they too want to remain anonymous which are disputable. First the pious claim, they don't want to hurt another fellow's right to pursue his interest. Second, the same anonymous sources through anonymous spokespersons claimed the first claim has to be sacrificed in the name of security.

The two claims are clearly contradicting one another. Everyone- the sources and the spokesperson want anonymity while remaining conscious of the contradictions. Why do they want that? Because the veracity of their positions and agenda are not provable as true and also because, they don't want to underwrite their claims with unimpeachable accountability. That's what anonymity does -- it allows dubious or even false claims to be spouted with impunity and without any accountability. 

That's why anonymity is such a valuable weapon for shadowy sources and informants and other creatures that inhabit the Hobbit world of 'higher causes' and such a risky and questionable practice for cyber-journalists.  If the claims from Reliable-Sources Anonymous are true about the intentions of the overlords at Putrajaya, then why can't they just attach their names to those claims and why weren't they made to do so by the CGAs before having their true and honest intentions amplified to the public?

Yes, I am indeed new to blogging. Before I started in June 2008, I have been reading them actually. It was sufficient for me to understand the practice of using anonymous calling cards by cyber journalists. They and their kind have engaged in all kinds of tortured public discussions and hear this people! -- Even promulgated guidelines for the proper use of anonymity (perhaps a sub-section of blogging ground rules) -- all of which, since then, have been almost entirely ignored and abused repeatedly. 

There are, of course, narrow circumstances in which anonymity is not only justifiable but crucial -- namely, when whistle-blowing reliable sources risk their jobs or even careers to divulge damaging information that the Government wants to hide -- but that obviously isn't how anonymity is being used in the vast majority of cases by beltway cyber-journalists, such as those documented above. (You know, the side roads, ring-roads along mainstream roads that most often confuse travelers and cause accidents?)

But I have yet to see the validity to extend that narrow justifiability of anonymity from risk-sensitive sources to cyber-reporters at large. Can anonymity be extended to the two cited above? Looking at the comments thus far, A Voice and Bigdog and even Rocky himself aren't exactly paragons of nobler use of anonymity either.

Instead, anonymity is now eagerly granted to any one even when they are doing nothing but spouting the ends of hidden-agenda setters ensconced deep in the upper reaches of Putrajaya and elsewhere through CGAs eager to be chosen as the Putrajaya Overlords' anointed message-carriers. In exchange, the CGAs are willing to agree to any conditions imposed by the hidden-agenda setters for that "honor." When RPK was doing all sort of exposures, he didn't hide his identity to get information from reliable sources.

The identity of his sources but not HIS remains anonymous. So to justify the use of anonymity because it facilitates the getting of information is flimsy. To move around unsuspecting story-droppers and later finding those being marketed around in blogosphere is even more unethical.

But no matter what legal protections exist; cyber-journalists should pause before handling information received from people who demand anonymity. Reporters should avoid promising anonymity to sources if it is being offered simply to encourage the source to say something in a dramatic or damaging way that the source would not say on the record. If the use of anonymity is tenuous for sources, it is even more for the reporters themselves. This use of anonymity harms the role of bloggers and diminishes the value of the confidentiality given to those who are real whistleblowers—people who actually risk their jobs and jail for what they may believe is a higher cause.