Spot the difference

Here’s a link to a column I wrote recently:

http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/the-lingering-consquences-of-idealistic_21.html

And here’s a commentary subsequently posted online:

http://vjmpublishing.nz/?p=306

Can you spot the difference?

I’ll give you a couple of clues.

■ The writer of the first piece is identified. In fact his name is in the phone book if anyone wants to ring and abuse him (no one ever does). There is no clue to the identity of the second writer. This is par for the course. He (and I’m guessing it’s a he) makes a show of being bold because he’s anonymous. In fact he’s spineless – an invertebrate.

■ The writer of the first piece puts forward arguments which, although some people are bound to disagree with them, avoid personal abuse and are expressed in generally moderate terms. He attempts to introduce balance by conceding there might be some merit in what the other side is saying. His main point is that we need to be careful about reform of the drug laws – hardly an extreme position – and he cites two authorities, a former coroner and an academic, in support of that view. The writer of the second piece – the anonymous guy – is splenetic and abusive. He resorts to puerile insults, which suggests that he has anger management issues. He tries to discredit the writer of the first piece by portraying him as a booze-sodden apologist for the liquor industry, all of which is provably wrong and therefore plainly defamatory. No newspaper would publish his bile for exactly that reason; but this is the internet, where anonymous, hate-filled cowards can rant with impunity. They exploit the right of free speech but are too gutless to accept the corollary, which is that if an opinion is worth expressing – particularly when you’re attacking someone’s reputation – then you should be prepared to put your name to it.

There’s a widely held view that these scuttling cockroaches should be ignored – that by acknowledging them, you only give them oxygen. But the flip side of that argument is that you embolden them by letting them get away with it. They need to be exposed and held up to the contempt they so richly deserve. 

That post-Vladivostok shootout

I've been following with interest the spirited online debate triggered by a column in which New Zealand Herald political commentator John Armstrong had a whack at bloggers Gordon Campbell and Bryce Edwards. Just back from covering Apec in Vladivostok, Armstrong unburdened himself of some deeply felt grievances over criticism of the mainstream media, and in particular political reporters, in the left-wing blogosphere. Labelling Campbell and Edwards a couple of "old school, Aro Valley-style socialists", Armstrong advised them: "Get off our backs".

What wounded the veteran political journalist were "cheap-shot accusations" that New Zealand reporters in Vladivostok concentrated on trivia, interviewed their laptops and meekly parroted the government line. He went on to bemoan the hardships of such overseas assignments: getting stuck in traffic jams, having to get by with little sleep, coping with technological hiccups, meeting awkward deadlines and clambering on and off buses in 35-degree heat. He went on to argue that, contrary to claims made by Campbell and Edwards, there had been thorough coverage of the Trans Pacific Partnership. He finished by observing that most blogsites depended on the mainstream media for their information and he accused them of being parasites, enjoying a free ride while attacking their hosts.

Armstrong seemed particularly sour about Edwards, an Otago University political scientist whose daily online wrap-up of political news and comment is hosted, as it happens, on the Herald's website. In a cryptic observation, he wrote that Edwards' blog was "starting to develop a much more political dynamic that is unlikely to please National".

It was provocative stuff and all the more notable for seeming to be out of character. Armstrong is normally one of the more detached political commentators, not given to over-the-top pronouncements, and I couldn't help wondering whether it was written while he was suffering fatigue and jet lag from his trip. My own feeling is that it was a lapse of judgment by a journalist who's generally regarded (certainly by me) as being considered, balanced and authoritative. And I wonder whether his comment about the "political dynamic" of Edwards' blog, which naturally was interpreted by most critics (including Campbell) as suggesting  Edwards shouldn't be upsetting the government, was simply clumsily worded, and that Armstrong was simply trying to say the blog was taking on a more noticeable anti-National tone.

Whatever the explanation, the column brought forth a blizzard of online comment, most of it denouncing Armstrong - often in savage personal terms - and suggesting that both he and and his paper are supine National Party mouthpieces (which I find amusing, given that many right-wing blogs are just as convinced that the Herald has been captured by the left). The Herald eventually had to shut down the debate and when I last checked, only the first 10 comments were still readable.

Inevitably, both Campbell and Edwards responded. I thought Edwards was admirably restrained and forgiving. He even confessed that he regarded Armstrong as New Zealand's top political journalist (boy, does he know how to make a guy feel bad). Campbell's response was more trenchant, as you might expect, but it was thoughtful, passionate and articulate (again, as you'd expect). Campbell may be less than convincing when he tries to disavow ideological bias (his weekly political columns in Fairfax community papers once made an effort to appear neutral but gave up that pretence long ago),  but no one could ever accuse him of lacking intellect or commitment.

So where does all this leave us? My own thoughts, for what they're worth, are that press gallery journalists covering a major overseas political event involving New Zealand present a soft target. I haven't been in that situation myself, but I can understand the limitations. They have to meet tight deadlines, they have limited resources and they are probably largely dependent, for better or worse, on information from people attached to the official New Zealand delegation. They don't have the resources of the Guardian or Wall Street Journal, two of the papers whose coverage Campbell held out as an example of how things should be done. (On the Hard News site, Russell Brown refers to a Reuters report from Vladivostok that was compiled by seven journalists, and comments that New Zealand reporters would look at that sort of resourcing and weep.) Besides, a journalistic variation of the Stockholm syndrome kicks in; whether they're covering sport, politics or whatever, New Zealand reporters on overseas assignments tend to absorb and reflect the "official" New Zealand line, as if it's noble little New Zealand against the world.

On the other hand, it was inevitable that Armstrong's piece would be seen as a little too self-serving, even self-pitying. That's why I think he would have been well advised to sit on his hands, no matter how resentful he felt about blogosphere criticism.

A disgrace to free speech

My former colleague and fellow blogger Denis Welch devoted his weekly media slot on National Radio’s Nine to Noon yesterday to the blogosphere – or more precisely, to the ugly, abusive tone of much of the comment posted on blogs.

Host Lynn Freeman, sitting in for Kathryn Ryan, volunteered that it really bugged her that so much of this rancid comment was anonymous. “It’s so gutless,” she said. “I despise it.”

Damned right, Lynn. I believe that if an opinion is worth expressing, it’s worth putting your name to.

When the opinion expressed is innocuous or benign, it may not matter too much. But when someone is viciously attacking someone else personally, as is so often the case, they should have the courage to step out into the light where they can be seen.

Of course the very reason so much blog comment is toxic is that the perpetrators are able to hide behind pseudonyms. If they were required to own up to their outbursts, these contemptible fleas would quickly vanish. Anonymity makes them brave.

Newspapers stopped accepting pseudonyms on letters to the editor a long time ago. (The Dominion was one of the first, in 1975.) Not only did this greatly reduce the risk of newspapers unwittingly publishing malicious letters, but the quality of correspondence improved overnight. No surprises there, since people who are prepared to be held accountable for their opinions are naturally more likely to think carefully about what they say and whether it can be justified.

Even talkback radio, though nominally anonymous, places a check on malicious and venomous callers by the mere fact that someone may recognise their voices. And if that’s not enough, content is moderated by a host who has a seven-second delay and a dump button in case things get out of hand.

The blogosphere, in contrast, is almost completely unrestrained. In Denis Welch’s words, it’s a Wild West.

There’s an argument that the anything-goes nature of the blogosphere is an essential part of its appeal; that anonymity is essential for free and unrestrained debate. This is a feeble excuse for gratuitous, juvenile name-calling. Transparency and openness don’t stifle free debate; they simply mean that it’s conducted in a civil, mature and honest way.

There is a narrow range of circumstances that justify anonymity. The whistle-blower drawing public attention to incompetence or corruption in government, at risk to his/her career, is an obvious example; likewise, the confidential source who gives information to the news media on a matter of public interest. But these defences don’t apply to the cowardly, splenetic ranters who infest the blogosphere. They’re a disgrace to free speech.