Anonymous Articles: Good or Bad?
What is the Role of Anonymity in Europeia?
Written by Kylia Quilor
Anonymous articles are not a new thing in the world. There was a time in the United States when most editorials submitted to papers were under pseudonyms, and anonymous books or exposes or whatnot are also not entirely new, and sometimes celebrated, sometimes condemned, for all kinds of reasons.
Recently, the Europeian Pessimist was created, designed to be a place where people could submit anonymous articles allowing them to complain or gripe about aspects of Europeia or specific Europeian politicians or groups without fear of social or political censure for their honesty. The reception even when I made it was mixed - I recall several people in Discord expressing issue with the idea, believing it could go bad. And certainly, the two anonymous articles released have created some issues - the first one sparked a rather heated discussion that may have gotten more personal than some wanted, and the second was an attack piece on Deepest House, which DH said was full of "Gross Misrepresentations" but that he was also unwilling to respond to, because the anonymous nature of the article made it not worthy of his time.
All of this does open the interesting question - are anonymous articles good? Should we even have them? Should people always be required to put their name on an article? Is there a social benefit provided by anonymity, and if so, does it apply in all cases, or only in some?
In Europeia, before the creation of “The Europeian Pessimist”, the most notable place to get anonymous journalism was PhDre's Aftermath Entertainment News.
These days, if you weren't around for the Heyday of Aftermath and especially the heyday of Three Eyes, all you might know of the (in)famous series of articles is that it serves as the source for an oft-overused series of gags and jokes involving sensationalist media article titles. Usually (in the joke) hinting at government corruption or abuse of power, as can be seen in my 2013 Presidential Election Thread, for example. The reality of Aftermath and Three Eyes, however, is far more interesting.
Originally, Aftermath was not conceived of as a place for anonymous journalism, or even something related to Europeian or NationStates politics.
And all AEN was, at first, was a place to discuss media - it produced a review of two albums and a TV show. But then it expanded its business, creating a new segment, Three Eyes with the mission statement of providing Europeia the "latest in political gossip, Senate business, and political commentary," and that "Aftermath Entertainment News is proud to announce an expansion into Europeia's political arena, called Three Eyes. Each eye represents a branch of Europeia's Government - this publication will commentate on all three."1
Three Eyes was conceived as being open to anonymous submissions, and indeed, it was all about that. And the first installment was an anonymous piece criticizing then recently re-elected Speaker Swakistek for his lackluster tenure on the job in the previous term and wondering aloud why the Senate gave him that job again.2 Not unlike the recent piece attacking Deepest House.
During one installment of Three Eyes, the central reasoning for anonymity was raised, "Anyone who would otherwise speak out against the government is no longer in a position to do so, because of the risks involved. In fact, that is why I have written anonymously."4
Immediately in that very thread, the credibility of the author was raised - after all, when it discussed a supposed minimal activity in the cabinet, it was pointed out that the author may not even have access to the cabinet communications areas. But in the thread, as in others, there was agreement with the notion that some people are intimidated into being quiet, as Earth22 noted: "There's the fact that questioning the government leads to attacks on oneself which leads people to being all quiet."5, while others argued that "if opposition is to be visible, it needs to be visible."6
Where some saw anonymity as just a way to make critique without fear of reprisal, it was also supported as a notion to "start a discussion" as much as to criticize specific people or institutions.7 When defending Aftermath and the various anonymous people who submitted to it from attack, PhDre opined that "character judgment based on how one submits an article is a bit excessive."8
Thus, the arguments for and against anonymity are not new ones, and have been used before, are being used now, and will be used again, long after The Pessimist fades into the archives and someone new comes in, bearing the standard of anonymity. A quick look at the Pessimist or the Europeian Discord Server after the publication of the DH article could show you where some of the views still stand.
But this analysis of our past doesn't really answer the question. Seven years ago, opinions were divided on the merits of anonymous articles, and on when, or if, they were beneficial to the region. And today, we have divided opinions again. As the Editor and Creator of The Pessimist, I support anonymity. My operating thesis was, and to a great degree still is, that we have too strong of a culture of civility and politeness. Those are good, but not to the extent where honesty is stifled, where most people feel, rightly or wrongly, that the social or political costs of honesty are too high. Not so much for daring to attack someone, but rather, because we as a region are so obsessed with being 'anti-toxicity' and 'anti-negativity' that we've sacrificed honesty on those alters, leaving only a handful of people to really be 100% honest about what they think of things in the region and of their fellow Europeians.
People aren't willing to share what they think of each other. They aren't willing to really be honest, and that leaves things festering and unsaid. If we believe the author of the DH article - and for the record, I personally don't agree with their thesis or conclusion - then they were afraid that if they came out against DH publicly, they'd be subject to the same sorts of attacks that Notolecta and JayDee received, hence their choice of anonymity.
That's one view. By contrast, there's another view, one that says that since anonymity creates a lack of accountability, there is no incentive to be accurate. Indeed, when approached for a comment on the subject of Anonymous articles in general, former Minister of Communications, and current Vice Chancellor Deepest House said "Indeed, there is heavy incentive to take liberties with the piece that one otherwise would not take if his or her name were attached to it." He was clear that he especially believed this applied to "opinion pieces and editorials solely designed to impugn the character, reputation, or abilities of another add no value to the regional conversation."
And DH isn't wrong. It's easy to lie when you'll never suffer any fallout from it. If I came out and started saying that Rachel was about to hand Europeia over to... Unibot, say, and I turned out to be lying my head off just to undermine our president, at the very least, people would be less inclined to trust my word. I could be taken to Court for defamation, and I might suffer political costs in future races.
But if someone wrote an anonymous article or post detailing Rach's heinous plan, well... people might laugh at the anonymous writer, especially when they're proven wrong, but... unless they can be identified, they don't get any direct backlash.
But Deepest House does have good things to say about anonymity in journalism when it comes to starting conversations, something I agree with and something that is definitely part of my logic for supporting anonymous articles, especially complaining ones - if we have it all out and talk about it, we will be better in the end. According to DH, "anonymity can serve a good purpose. If an individual wants to open discussion on a new grand idea or concept, submitting an anonymous work places the conversation on the subject, without bias or influence arising from the perception of the author."
This is absolutely true, and was another one of the ideas behind Aftermath - the more things change.
But not everyone even goes so far as to support this reading, that anonymity can actually start a regional conversation or open the door for people to talk about a thing. For example, Antonius GraVandius, former CA Chair, suggested, when offering a comment, that it might actually be more stifling, driving people more underground: "Where if people aren't speaking out about something than others are unlikely to speak out. So even if an anonymous article calls someone or some issue out it may not give the courage to other individuals to also speak out since the author themselves wasn't willing to stick their neck out."
And there's something to be said about that - when calling out the region for a lack of a visible opposition, as happened in some of the earliest anonymous installments of the Three Eyes, it was pointed out that it would be hard to create that visible opposition... while being invisible.
If I want to say something about a given policy - pretend for a second I'm not the outspoken and blunt woman you all know and love to hate - and I see no one talking about it, I may not want to say anything. If the only person willing to talk about it does it under the cloak of anonymity... well, that doesn't really increase my courage in being willing to say anything - not in my own article or post, and possibly not even in the thread itself. And presumably I won't be the only one concerned. At that point, is there any value added to the region at all?
So what are the merits of anonymous articles? Should we encourage media outlets to not support anonymity at all, or regulate them better? It has been pointed out that truly toxic comments in polls might be best removed, for example, so should we have some sort of social censure for media outlets unwilling to avoid publishing the nakedly or viciously critical pieces? But on what metric do we judge that?
DH said that articles that serve only to attack "add no value", but is that entirely true? I mean, if we go to the attack on him submitted to the pessimist, it becomes clear - to me at least - that the author was in fact trying to start or contribute to the regional conversation about a larger issue.
At the end of the article, the author says: "As part of the 2015 fall out between Notolecta and Deepest House, Skizzy Grey observed that Europeia had been too willing to tolerate the obnoxious behavior of certain individuals. We need to ask ourselves if that is something we are still willing to do."9
Certainly, we've seen the question of letting some members get away with certain behaviors deemed come up again recently, as brought up in JD's "A Lot of Things" thread in regards to some of the things Hyanygo has had to say, though Skizzy was also fingered as being able to get away with things.10
We've seen it come up time and again in the region. Those of us who remember an absolutely charming fellow by the name of Allied Alliances might recall how he got away with behavior that we today would not tolerate - behavior that might even get him taken to the Court over harassment. Indeed, as I recall - though i didn’t find any source, so I might be remembering incorrectly - HEM even said that he looked at AA's actions differently now, in retrospect, than he did at the time when the man was active, and how AA would not be tolerated the same way now as he was tolerated back then.
So was it adding to the regional conversation? I'd say it was - but based on his reactions in the thread of the article attacking him, DH didn't think it was. And he's got a point, especially since the article focuses so heavily on him before finally expanding outward just a touch at the end.
And beyond the articles presented... one man's hatchet job hit piece is another man's so obviously true hit piece. One woman's blatant misrepresentations is another woman's 'well, look at it from this perspective...'. Judging these anonymous articles can be very hard because it can heavily depend on where you stand, on the article, on its conclusions, and on the people or things being discussed.'
So what's the verdict? Is anonymous criticism good? Can it start regional conversations, or not? I don't know what the answer is - I know where I stand, I know where others stand, but I don't know who is right. The region didn't die of toxicity when Aftermath ran some pretty heavily critical anonymous pieces, but at the same time, the region in 2010 and 2011 isn't exactly the same as the region now. In the end, I come down on the side that says anonymity is worth the downside. There are risks, yes, and they need to be managed, by having clear and reasonable guidelines on what is acceptable, but there are risks to everything.
Personally, I'd rather take the risk of a little dishonest reporting if it means that in the long term, people are willing to speak, even anonymously. I think the room for bluntness and directness and even open negativity is worth the risk, worth the potential costs. But then, that's a given - I created The Pessimist on that very notion that any problems, including hard feelings, in the short term, are worth the long term benefits. So obviously I'd think that. Others... might not think so, and it's not as if they're horribly wrong simply for disagreeing with me. It is a complicated subject, and it heavily depends on what you personally value more, and how you approach and feel about conflict and disagreement.
I don't have an answer - and I'm not sure, given our history, we'll ever come to a single answer. We didn't with Three Eyes, and we probably won't with The Pessimist, and we almost certainly won't with the next medium for anonymous articles that comes out of the ether in a few years.
But just because we'll never agree doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.
1: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1261450/1/
2: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1261494/
3: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1266929/1/
4: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1262007/1/
5: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=1002934&t=1262007
6: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=1002935&t=1262007
7: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1262100/1/
8: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=1090067&t=1267966
9: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/10024202/1
10: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=10102645&t=10023719
2: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1261494/
3: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1266929/1/
4: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1262007/1/
5: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=1002934&t=1262007
6: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=1002935&t=1262007
7: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/1262100/1/
8: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=1090067&t=1267966
9: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/10024202/1
10: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=10102645&t=10023719
