7 ms·

There are two ways to do this from the perspective of a journalist. The first, is to do as the author attempted: that is to find every way possible to hide you

There are two ways to do this from the perspective of a journalist. The first, is to do as the author attempted: that is to find every way possible to hide your identity. It's a lot of work, and maybe impossible. The second is to put yourself out there. Be a public figure, unafraid of what you are publishing. Allow people to know who you are and what you stand for. Use your fame to your advantage. Call me an optimist, but the powers that be will have a tough time keeping you quiet if you represent a populist movement. In fact, it's eventually to their advantage to support the cause if it's meaningful and popular enough; the game of politics is won by catering to the masses. At the end of the day, if you want to be a muckraker you can't be scared to get in the muck. I realize there can be repercussions. But it's far easier to support a face than it is some anonymous text.

rmc 14y ago
That presumes you get famous before you start publishing stuff.
martinkallstrom 14y ago
In the countries where investigative journalism would do most service to the public, putting yourself out there will get you jailed, beaten up or shot. Entire governments keep their reign in part by controlling media. And some organisations too, like the drug gangs in Mexico. One blogger was literally beheaded by a local Mexican gang. From this perspective it is more than a little naive to stipulate that "if you want to be a muckraker you can't be scared to get in the muck". The need for true anonymity is not fiction, it is very real in the world we live in, right now.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  I'm not naive. I realize there are repercussions to it. It isn't unique in history, and I'm grateful people have and continue to do so. When you're publishing things about the Mexican drug cartels, you have to expect that you're going to piss off the gangs. That's part and parcel with what you're doing. Unfortunately, it's sort of how progress is made; if you publish something and get jailed, beat up or even killed, that becomes part of your message. I'm not trying to sound flippant. It's reality. What passes for "anonymity" won't save you, and true anonymity makes it unlikely that what you publish can make a difference. Besides, did truly anonymous publishing ever really exist? When it comes to getting your message out to make a difference (which I assume is the underlying point), fame and anonymity are opposite sides of the same coin. If you can't achieve one, you're best bet is to focus on the other.
  - marshray 14y ago
    The thesis of the linked article is "publishing with strong anonymity is impractical with current internet services". You seem to be saying "getting yourself beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and killed is just part of exposing corruption, get over it". I don't see that comment as particularly constructive.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      I'm questioning the reason behind the need for strong anonymous publishing, as well as whether it ever really existed.
  - SagelyGuru 14y ago
    I don't agree that fame and anonymity are opposed to each other. Most famous writer´s names are just ´handles´ invented for some measure of anonymity.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      >Most famous writer´s names are just ´handles´ invented for some measure of anonymity Most? That is utterly untrue. I bet you'd be hard pressed to name any. Besides, if you write under a pseudonym, and participate publicly under that pseudonym, you are no longer anonymous.
      - SagelyGuru 14y ago
        You probably think it is utterly untrue because you don't even realise that such well known names like Mark Twain, are, in fact, just handles.
rudiger 14y ago
What if you don't represent a populist movement and your views don't cater to the masses?
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  That's a good question. Would you like it if people could anonymously publish and distribute hate speech? It's tricky. I'm making an assumption, but in most scenarios it's the powerful few controlling the masses, and doing so through controlling the flow information.
  - geuis 14y ago
    There's nothing tricky about it. Hate speech is a vile thing, but you or I have as much right to say it as we say anything else. Freedom of speech should ensure that no one is silenced for their viewpoint. Whether we like what other people have to say depends, but they always have the right to say it.
    - kennywinker 14y ago
      Very american perspective. Here in Canada (and many other places in the world) we have laws against hate speech. The definition is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada). Words have an impact on the world. If you call for violence against a group of people, you can be held accountable for that in Canada. Nobody is saying you can't say "I hate <group of people>", but when you say "<group of people> should be killed" you've crossed a line and can be held legally accountable. It's a tricky issue, but personally I think our system is more in line with most people's natural sense of morality. If I call for violence, and violence happens, am I not at least partially culpable in that violence? Especially if I am a community leader, or other person of influence.
      - Dylan16807 14y ago
        You'll still get in trouble in the US if you're inciting specific crimes. But "all them ___ should be shot" is just a (bad) opinion. And you can impotently rant about those all you want.

rmc 14y ago

That presumes you get famous before you start publishing stuff.

martinkallstrom 14y ago

In the countries where investigative journalism would do most service to the public, putting yourself out there will get you jailed, beaten up or shot. Entire governments keep their reign in part by controlling media. And some organisations too, like the drug gangs in Mexico. One blogger was literally beheaded by a local Mexican gang. From this perspective it is more than a little naive to stipulate that "if you want to be a muckraker you can't be scared to get in the muck". The need for true anonymity is not fiction, it is very real in the world we live in, right now.

tatsuke95 14y ago
I'm not naive. I realize there are repercussions to it. It isn't unique in history, and I'm grateful people have and continue to do so. When you're publishing things about the Mexican drug cartels, you have to expect that you're going to piss off the gangs. That's part and parcel with what you're doing. Unfortunately, it's sort of how progress is made; if you publish something and get jailed, beat up or even killed, that becomes part of your message. I'm not trying to sound flippant. It's reality. What passes for "anonymity" won't save you, and true anonymity makes it unlikely that what you publish can make a difference. Besides, did truly anonymous publishing ever really exist? When it comes to getting your message out to make a difference (which I assume is the underlying point), fame and anonymity are opposite sides of the same coin. If you can't achieve one, you're best bet is to focus on the other.
- marshray 14y ago
  The thesis of the linked article is "publishing with strong anonymity is impractical with current internet services". You seem to be saying "getting yourself beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and killed is just part of exposing corruption, get over it". I don't see that comment as particularly constructive.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    I'm questioning the reason behind the need for strong anonymous publishing, as well as whether it ever really existed.
- SagelyGuru 14y ago
  I don't agree that fame and anonymity are opposed to each other. Most famous writer´s names are just ´handles´ invented for some measure of anonymity.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    >Most famous writer´s names are just ´handles´ invented for some measure of anonymity Most? That is utterly untrue. I bet you'd be hard pressed to name any. Besides, if you write under a pseudonym, and participate publicly under that pseudonym, you are no longer anonymous.
    - SagelyGuru 14y ago
      You probably think it is utterly untrue because you don't even realise that such well known names like Mark Twain, are, in fact, just handles.

rudiger 14y ago

What if you don't represent a populist movement and your views don't cater to the masses?

tatsuke95 14y ago
That's a good question. Would you like it if people could anonymously publish and distribute hate speech? It's tricky. I'm making an assumption, but in most scenarios it's the powerful few controlling the masses, and doing so through controlling the flow information.
- geuis 14y ago
  There's nothing tricky about it. Hate speech is a vile thing, but you or I have as much right to say it as we say anything else. Freedom of speech should ensure that no one is silenced for their viewpoint. Whether we like what other people have to say depends, but they always have the right to say it.
  - kennywinker 14y ago
    Very american perspective. Here in Canada (and many other places in the world) we have laws against hate speech. The definition is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Canada). Words have an impact on the world. If you call for violence against a group of people, you can be held accountable for that in Canada. Nobody is saying you can't say "I hate <group of people>", but when you say "<group of people> should be killed" you've crossed a line and can be held legally accountable. It's a tricky issue, but personally I think our system is more in line with most people's natural sense of morality. If I call for violence, and violence happens, am I not at least partially culpable in that violence? Especially if I am a community leader, or other person of influence.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      You'll still get in trouble in the US if you're inciting specific crimes. But "all them ___ should be shot" is just a (bad) opinion. And you can impotently rant about those all you want.