Journalist Uppities
As I'm wont to do, when I respond to a newspaper or online article, I usually copy the writer of the article, and any people in the article itself. So, I sent my previous entry to technology@syracuse.com, not expecting much of a response.
Receiving nothing would have been better than the diatribe I've encountered. I should have known when the author has some link to the "Dr. Gizmo" technology columns (which, based on his signature, he takes credit for writing but refers to himself in the third person: "Dr. Gizmo once tried to clean Al Fasoldt's laptop screen..."). You'll find this Dr. Gizmo crap more humorous in just a second.
My previous entry is a slight revision of a mailing list post I sent to WEB4LIB yesterday, and notice that the subject line is the title of the article in question but, due to anxious snipping, no article URL itself was included - just my reply. Since I felt my reply was equally written for both the mailing list and the author, I just CC'd his email address. No big deal, I thought. Uh huh.
Welp, first out of his mouth is "what article rubs you the wrong way?", and then "is Morbus Iff your real name?". I didn't think much of the fact that he didn't make a logical conclusion based on the email subject (cos, you know, again, it was the name of his article), but after explaining who I am, and why that Kevin fellow only exists to make money, he responded with an impassioned screed about how writing to a newspaper with a nom de plume may be "exotic", but it puts journalists on a wary footing because of its anonymity. And why the hell would I send him a mailing list reply when his articles are only published this, that, and the other way?
I was not impressed. Supposedly, this guy is a technology journalist, but he can't make a logical conclusion about what the email is about (based on the subject line with the article's title), nor make the great leap to think his article could be discussed on a mailing list. And hell, he uses the name "Dr. Gizmo."
It didn't get much better, eventually ending in "don't email me unless you use your real name". I had previously questioned if "Bill Jones", as fake as Morbus Iff, was more real because it looked "just right", but it was never further addressed. He also doesn't seem to appreciate the irony of "Dr. Gizmo" being a non de plume, who gives out anonymous technical facts as opposed to merely opinions. Wasn't the whole intent of the article in the first place to challenge the anonymous and non-authoritative nature of Wikipedia?
Update: Al has given me permission to publish the following snippet:
You'd find my lectures interesting, especially the next few, when I plan to talk about this sort of thing, and about anonymity and the decline of civility. Expecting someone you write to to guess who you are (or, worse yet, to not even CARE who you are) is a fascinating look at a set of ethical values that I don't share. If opinions have any importance, they have them only in the context of who we are and what we stand for. And that can only matter when we are willing to stand up and identify ourselves. The fact that you never learned that is a genuine tragedy.
I'm still debating on whether I want to respond to that, but then I remembered that I already addressed the issue waaaaay back in 1998 with Devil Shat Nineteen's "You Are What You Type" (the opening image is an illustration, but NSFW; it's quickly scroll-by-able). Yeah, reading back on it, it's relatively poorly written and filled with questions not answers, but until further prompted by Al's lectures, I'll hold off further contributions.
"With this loss of identity on the net, we have lost our sense of caution."
Tell me dear readers, is Morbus Iff anonymous?
