Whelan Apologizes: Good for Him
Ed Whelan just wrote the following over at The Corner:
On reflection, I now realize that, completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging, I have been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius. Earlier this evening, I sent him an e-mail setting forth my apology for my uncharitable conduct. As I stated in that e-mail, I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.Credit where credit is due. It took a while, but this is an actual apology. And given the size of the hole he had already dug for himself on this issue, I'm sure it wasn't easy for Whelan to write this. Though, as he acknowledges, this apology doesn't do much for publius, it is nevertheless important and welcome. By acknowledging that he should not have done what he did, Whelan sets a helpful precedent and makes it less likely that someone else will do the same thing in the future. That's important. This episode had the potential to create a chilling effect in the blogosphere, to discourage people in certain lines of employment from participating. But I think the near universal condemnation of Whelan's conduct, coupled with his apology, may actually end up having the opposite effect. I think this episode goes a long way toward officially ratifying one of the most important unwritten rules of online ethics, i.e., that a person's decision to write under a pseudonym should be respected barring compelling reasons not to do so. And retaliating against criticism is not such a reason. To the extent that rule is widely understood and acknowledged, it will encourage greater participation in online politics and result in a greater variety of voices being heard.
posted by A.L. at 11:46 PM
38 Comments:
An all-around interesting episode, and, hopefully, a teachable moment for all involved/witnessing. I'm especially glad when people of different political leanings can come together to agree on what constitutes civil discourse. I'm glad to see Whelan realize what a hole he dug for himself and future bloggers.
Though I'm still very curious to see how Jonah digs himself in even deepter.
ahem: "deeper," not "deepter"
(I wouldn't correct this normally, but oh, it's under my actual name! How I wish for a pseudonym with which to be irresponsible!)
It's great that he apologized. But I'd still like to know if he has a history of this in his relations with people: Shoot first, then apologize: "Oops, sorry, my bad."
This episode makes me think as such. A person out of control at times.
I could swear I just saw a Poland China sow fly by my window. I don't care what anyone says; the Twenty-first Century is bewitched.
We'll never know, but I'd be fascinated to learn what the process was that got Whelan to write the apology. Remarks from friends? Reading the blogs? Input from mentors? The person who initially told him who publius really was?
Whelan was getting support from the National Review for the last couple of days which made me think he wouldn't budge. And his follow-on posts, until now, were consistently unrepentant.
I agree with A.L. that this incident strengthens the pseudonymous case. There is however, the related issue of outing gay Republican politicians (e.g. by TBogg, AMERICAglog), which right-wing defenders of Whelan took note of. I don't like any outing, but my view may be a minority in liberal-blog-land.
Of course, there are pseudonyms and pseudonyms. If I post as "Roboticus", it's pretty obvious that I'm using a pseudonym; if I use "Bosco Hern", somewhat less so. Unless the folks at Powerline, et. al, are checking drivers licences, they don't really know who's being anonymous and who isn't. (And no, email verification doesn't help, as spending a few minutes at Mailinator will demonstrate.
But I think the near universal condemnation of Whelan's conduct, coupled with his apology, may actually end up having the opposite effect.
I wish that were the case, but I suspect there will always be a**holes who don't much follow blogging "ethics" who will still find glee in outing those they disagree with.
I think Whelan realized that the longer this played out his behaviour and the substantive criticism his writing had received from publius, Sully and AL, would be ever more closely examined to his overwhelming detriment. His writing REALLY doesn't hold up very well to critical scrutiny and his petulance in outing publius further exposes equally significant ethical and character shortcomings. The apology seems like self-serving damage control. While ostensibly admirable it does nothing to redress the possibly irreparable damage to the professor's job, his family or their jobs.
Would that it were so.
The ethic will last only as long as the NEXT time someone is outed.
It is certainly to Ed's credit (strangely enough I am friendly with him despite having had raging arguments with him on and offline. This action was clearly out of character for him imo) that he apologized.
As for the larger ramifications you are ascribing, I simply doubt it.
The best is leaving all his erstwhile defenders in the lurch.
It is so very very rare for anyone to apologize -- anyone -- that Whelan offers us all an excellent role-model.
Doesn't mitigate the damage to Publius but it sure elevates Whelan out of the gutter. I am sure it took a lot of fortitude on his part.
I give Whelan full credit for this, and particularly its unconditional and unqualified nature.
That said, what does it say about all his defenders over at NRO and elsewhere?
As to establishing a precedent,well, maybe.
Just a few weeks before the Anon Lib began blogging an irate lefty prof with tenure took it upon himself to unmask Juan Non Volokh (now known to be J Adler) because he didn't like the quality and insight of Non-Volokh's argumentation.
This bright light of the left is unrepentant (see below), but I am sure the Anon Lib can get an amusing blog post out of an exchange of emails with him.
Brian Leiter's UPDATE to his old outing post:
"6/7/09 Update: I gather this topic is 'back in the news,' at least in the blogosphere. A few pertinent words about the reprehensible Eugene Volokh and his conduct are here. Most law schools have no tenure standards, so the idea that Mr. Adler was 'in danger' by being outed was ludicrous; in any case, he was blogging under his own name at The National Review at the very same time as he was smearing people anonymously on the Volokh blog. Ed Whelan is, like most of The National Review writers and bloggers, an intellectual lightweight and ideological hack whose understanding of the law is, at best, juvenile. But I can certainly understand why he would identify a blogger who repeatedly attacked him. There are people who really need the protection of anonymity, but tenure-track law faculty are not among them. Professor Blevins should own his words and should be proud of his criticisms of Whelan."
Tom Maguire
I’m late to the party but here goes.
First, I don’t read either of these bloggers so I don’t have a dog in the fight. Whelan clearly outed Publius for petty, spiteful reasons.
But so be it. It’s nothing more than a courtesy that we respect the anonymity of bloggers. Courtesies can always be withdrawn or be subject to limits. (I’m not talking about posting private information about someone.)
I don’t think anyone has the right to enter the public sphere to give his opinions on matters of public interest and then expect, demand, require that his anonymity be respected.
Step out into public and you become subject to public scrutiny. And rightly so. The public has a right to know who speakers are. If you’re giving the public your opinions on global warming, say, then the public has a right to know if you’re on ExxonMobil’s payroll. Or NRDC’s, for that matter.
Over the last few decades, the trend has been for greater disclosure of those who seek to influence public policy. Take money from a foreign government and you have to file with the DOJ. Become a lobbyist on Capitol Hill and you have to register and now disclose. Donate money to a presidential campaign and you become searchable on a public database. Sunshine laws force many government agencies to operate in public.
Bloggers, anonymous or not, do not merit being exempt from this general trend.
If someone fears retaliation if his identity becomes public, then he should do a better job of concealing himself.
-- cash
Over the last few decades, the trend has been for greater disclosure of those who seek to influence public policy.
Cash, are you suggesting that current consensus (result of a trend) is that people who fear retaliation or retribution should not participate in politics or try to influence public policy? How do you feel about anonymous voting?
How do you feel about anonymous voting?
Or laws protecting whistle blowers. The goal of transparency in general does not obviate the need for safety in the specific. Good information is frequently available from those who cannot, without pseudonymity and/or other protections, provide it in a public forum.
Does that place the onus of understanding and evaluating that information squarely upon the audience? Yes. But no more so than if it had been delivered by a public source.
Scrutinizing an argument only requires the authors to proclaim themselves if a point of decision hinges on an authority exclusive to them. When has that ever been the case with Publius?
I never heard of Publius until this spat. So I can't address any of his particulars.
The public space is public and belongs to the public and is used for political speech on matters of great public interest. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't want politics driven by actors who want to shape public policy but are unwilling to identify themselves in public.
Publius isn't, as far as I know, a whistlerblower who contacts the NYT/WP because he knows of no other way to shed light on wrongdoing.
You know, don't you, that the secret ballot aside, we don't allow voters to keep their identities secret? (A rare exception is voting by members of a jury but that's for operational expediency. Unanimous verdicts become impossible if jurors do not feel free to change their minds in later rounds of voting.)
The right is worried about the check-off replacing secret votes by workers to unionize. But shareholder votes are public and management knows exactly how fund managers voted.
A few exceptions notwithstanding, we have a presumption that favors disclosure of who is taking what public stand that is of interest to others. And I support that.
I don't want political speakers to conceal themselves if they're writing a letter to Savage Love or Dear Abby.
Sorry, but when Publius out into public to give us his opinions, his identity became public. That no one bothered to out him until Whelan did it for spiteful reasons doesn't change the larger point.
-- cash
cash.
I hope you see the humor in your statement that anonymity is bad.
As the voice of the minority opinion, I will posit that Ed only apologized because he buckled under pressure, not because he had a belated epiphany.
I give him no credit for that; and it does not enhance his character by the slightest increment.
When a rat deserts a sinking ship we recognize the practical nature of the decision. We do not laud him for it.
As someone who’s never quite been sure that the English language provides the possibility for ( that is, even makes phraseable) an actual authentic apology – it seems to me one is always apologizing for something other than what the offended party really wants or deserves – I guess I’m willing to bow to the consensus that Whelan’s is, relatively speaking, a good one. That said, I still find it wanting, as there seems something a little preening and Catholic about the way he reduces his offense to “uncharitability.” That is, rather than countenance the full spectrum of assholity that his outing so generously occupies – the petulance, the rank immaturity, the discursive surrender – he comes round to his contrition only by recognizing the respects in which his behavior violates some personal (and Papally endorsed) code of charity. That code is more of a curtain than a window, I say, and renders his apology, like all apologies, a slight misfire. As he admits, he can never restore Publius’ anonymity, but he could certainly reflect a while longer on just how pathetic his own behavior was. If he prefers, he could think of it as an exercise in self-flagellation.
Measure of its inadequacy, Whelan’s apology – or the form of his apology – leaves the likes of Jonah Goldberg free to stick to his pop-guns, as Goldberg is under no moral obligation to operate by the same standard of “charity” as Whelan.
On the topic of which, I have to say – and my apologies for hearkening back to AL's last post here -- but as someone who, under my own name, dabbled a while in politically oriented punditry, one of the reasons I eventually pulled back from such activity (in addition to the fact that, given my occupation, my name is my brand), was the recognition that to be a viable political pundit in this day and age one for some reason has to read what Jonah Goldberg writes. And I’m not referencing him emblematically. I mean him specifically. Honestly, I would rather drink a vomit smoothie for breakfast every morning than voluntarily click a link to something that that smug, powdered, ass-hat has ever written, I find the very notion so insulting to my intelligence, my dignity, and to gift of time, life and breath I have been so briefly granted on this plain. Why on earth anyone would willingly subject himself, or herself, to such bonafide, sophomoric idiocy, and then deign to parry it with logic, I have no idea.
But if his writing is an affront to intellgence, his very conspicuous presence is, as AL points out, 100% attributable to his being the son, and early foremost apologist, for a woman who, with all respect to mothers everywhere, was perhaps the most disgusting player in one of the most disgusting episodes in the history of American politics. Literally, none of us would even know Jonah Goldberg’s name right now if his mother hadn’t deliberately manipulated her way into the life of Monica Lewinsky in order to betray the confidence of that very friendship in order to drag the nation into the morass of that whole affair. That is how we got to know this guy, as the pampered son defending his mother’s utterly despicable behavior. The fact that he -- absent any real charm, talent, or intellectual rigor -- has been able to parlay that episode into such a successful career as a well-known “opinion-maker” stands as the ultimate indictment of all political punditry everywhere. ALs, Publius, Sully, Greenwald, I love you guys, but what compels you to give a flying f*ck what Jonah Goldberg has to say about anything other than grooming poodles will forever be a mystery.
Sorry. Evaluation of an argument does not require knowledge of the author unless the basis of the argument is Appeal to (their own) Authority.
Whether sourced from the blogosphere, mainstream media, personal or professional research, the burden is on the audience to understand and evaluate any and all information in support of a claim.
Cogency will almost never hinge on the identity of the claimant. Occasionally, factual information can be the exclusive or restrictive province of the claimant, at which point anonymity prevents supporting information from meeting standards of evidence, but that hardly ever happens in political blogs.
There's a very simple speculative test: if anonymity were banned tomorrow (and such a ban were enforceable), would the net impact on the medium be positive or negative?
I am convinced that the richness of dialog would immediately be diminished by loss of those bloggers too chilled to participate.
If you accept the responsibility of thinking critically, what risk does the anonymity of bloggers holding up their ideas to rigorous scrutiny pose to you?
My problem with anonymous bloggers has to do with their insisting that the public must grant them a right to remain anonymous. I have no problem respecting their anonymity -- but that's merely as a courtesy. When push comes to shove, I want to know who is speaking in public.
Does my stance chill the public discourse? Of course not.
Public discourse is enhanced if the public has more information and better information. By remaining anonymous, Publius was in position to deceive and mislead.
As for the claim that evaluating an argument does not require knowing the author, at least since Thucydides, political speech has been a public act in which the speaker’s identity and his words become one and the same. Political speech has nothing to do with the Jesuitical claim that statements can have veracity independent of their authors. Logically true but politically irrelevant.
Let’s pretend Publius has an exceptionally high regard for Sotomayor’s fitness to become a member of the Supremes. (Does he? I don’t know.) Does knowing she made the phone call that got him his present law school gig change how we evaluate his opinion?
And yes, for Publius to have concealed his relationship with her behind his anonymity damages the public interest. At least in some very small way.
What else could it do?
-- cash
"Whether sourced from the blogosphere, mainstream media, personal or professional research, the burden is on the audience to understand and evaluate any and all information in support of a claim."
Well that's all well and good when there is no nor could there be any real factual basis for the opinion i.e. when it is a purely matter of personal judgment, preference, values etc.
But suppose the public policy issue turns on, say, the impact of earthquakes on a certain type of construction. Or on how housing is actually produced and financed? (My own expertise is urban design & land-use so of course my hypos will be drawn of that area.) Wouldn't you like to know the qualification of the speaker? Is he an architect or structural engineer? Is she a banker or developer?
If the speaker has genuine knowledge and experience (or doesn't) it seems important to know that in order to help assess the statement.
I agree it is not absolutely essential. Sometimes one knows enough to assess the speaker's background. AL, for example, by the force and clarity of his (her?) arguments commands respect. But if AL made a statement which involved detailed expertise (say, something involving fire and its impact on Sierra ecosystems) I'd like to know more. In fact it would be to AL's own benefit to be able to show that there was some true expertise behind their statements.
Pointless hypotheticals aside, the fact remains that, due to the pack mentality which takes over in controversial situations, those who espouse particular points of view can be placed in danger if anonymity (or at least, pseudonymity) is not allowed and respected.
If it were, in fact, to A.L.'s benefit to provide more evidence for a particular assertion at the expense of outing himself, that would surely be a matter for him to decide, not for us.
And, yes, statements can be evaluated independent of the speaker. It has to be so, as otherwise all of science, philosophy, and law are nothing but empty authority-quoting. Religion is meaningless (or, more properly, even less meaningful, if that's possible) as well.
Personally, I think that the challenge of supporting assertions only through the force of argument is beneficial to the argument and to the person who is constructing it.
Were anonymity to be abolished on the internet, all we would have would be wing-nut welfare queens, the independently wealthy, corporate shills and tenured professors shouting at each other. That would be a disaster for free speech, in my opinion.
Does my stance chill the public discourse? Of course not.
That is only obviously true if you define political discourse to be synonymous with public discourse.
Cash, Mr. Sucher, I appreciate your continued efforts. You are helping me understand that I am doing a poor job of making my own argument.
In the instance of Publius' hypothetical support for Sotomayor, the phone call is only relevant if the articles of his support include an appeal to his own authority. If he produces an argument based solely on his analysis of her publicly available body of judicial case history, while it may be mendacious to conceal the relationship, it doesn't affect cogency. You are not suggesting revelation of the relationship invalidates the arguments, right? Merely that it is additional information that alerts us to consider bias.
That consideration is a requirement regardless of anonymity. In the face of anonymity it is quasi-impossible to resolve, but I still think the majority of arguments will not be decided by the circumstances (relationships, credentials, etc.) of the proponent. And it is precisely, Mr. Sucher, because the warrants, backing and modal qualifiers of the claim will involve facts!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. (Moynihan, I think?)
Bona fide expertise is not much better guarantor of solid argument than cultural celebrity. If we accept that experts will lie, can be wrong, are not infallible, then we have an obligation to scrutinize their claims, including fact checking.
If the argument involves highly technical data for which I am incapable of independent fact checking, then I am reduced to relying on authority. I'm also probably eaves dropping at a conference on a unified theory of physics, or something equally abstruse.
Political blogs are exactly the sort of forum in which everyone should be hammering on ideas to see what holds up. It's the last place you want to accept anything on someone's authority, or to discourage participation.
Thus, in my opinion, the benefits of pseudonymity still outweigh costs. For each of the infrequent occasions wherein a compelling argument cannot be further evaluated because the claims rest solely on the authority of an anonymous poster, there are countless conversations happening because someone felt sufficiently secure to offer up their ideas in the crucible of public examination.
I don't think Whelan's apology was sincere. It was motivated not, in my view, by further reflection but by Whelan's realization that his own friends were deserting him and therefore he'd better eat crow while there was still time.
"Publius" has accepted the apology, but he really had no choice. To do anything else would've appeared churlish. Thus, Whelan had his cake and ate it too. This is all too often how it goes with bullies. They win, because people allow it.
In a more just world, The National Review would inform Mr. Whelan that his insights are no longer welcome. But that won't happen. The bully wins.
i can't believe all of blogtopia and yes, i coined that phrase, is willing to let ed off so easily for apologizing.
"well, it's true he did run over the 4 year old, but he apologized, so, good for him."
in other news, open barn door apologizes to runaway horses.
"run over the 4 year old" is another poster's example. Mine, before I read it was. "Sorry, I shot your dog. It was barking and I couldn't sleep. So I shot it. Now that it's dead [and it won't be barking anymore] I can say I'm sorry." Ok, proper form for an apology. Correct word order. But the perp needs to replace the dog. The damage has not been repaired. And we are left with a judgment of the shooter which is that he cannot be trusted with a gun. Next time it may be a kid. Once a bully, always a bully. Yes, but an apologetic one. Even money there'll be another offense just as egregrious. Shooting a dog is nothing next to justifying torture after all. [not proofed for spelling]
I have always blogged using my real first name. But I did not attach a surname for a number of reasons: (1) I sometimes share anecdotes about what it was like to be raised in a very, very far right, religiously insane family, and my parents are online, (2) my employment situation has been precarious in the very right-wing, religious area in which I live, and I've had enough going against me, such as serious health problems, and (3) I'm a woman living alone who takes no prisoners on some issues, and I didn't want crazies finding me.
But I now use my full name for my email address, and have on a few occasions posted my full name at a blog. But the bottom line is: there are reasons -- good ones -- some people post anonymously.
(I often right about drug policy and that at the least, we should go the route of decriminalization, if not legalization w/ regulation and taxation. In my neck of the woods I may as well be advocating toddler rape.)
--Mona--
As a conservative, I'm glad to read that Whelan apologized. Where he lost me was in his premise that Publius' decision to blog anonymously was motivated by a desire to make irresponsible assertions. The only evidence of this, as far as I can see, is that Whelan regarded Publius' attacks on him as scurrilous. However, it doesn't follow that Publius necessarily KNEW they were scurrilous and was consciously relying on anonymity as a way of remaining unaccountable for making such "scurrilous" attacks. IOW, Publius could have been making the attacks in a good faith belief they WEREN'T "scurrilous." More broadly, it just wasn't all that clear Publius' ability to blog anonymously materially influenced what he had to say, one way or the other.
I’m sorry I took your virginity.
It is interesting to consider the stature and substantive qualifications of the so-called unaccountable, pseudonymous bloggers of the left. We have people like Atrios (PhD in econs) and Hilzoy (Johns Hopkins prof). A.L. is, as far as can be gleaned, a partner in a large law firm. How strange is it to read comments to the effect that the liberal blogosphere is some radical fringe of seething crazies. What a stunning loss of perpective and balance.
For a much more sophisticated discussion of these issues than I've seen just about anywhere else, have a look at this posting by Brian Leiter: http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2009/06/thoughts-on-anonymity-and-pseudonymity-in-cyberspace.html
I realize Leiter is not a disinterested observer (he threatened to "out" the fellow who blogged as Juan Non-Volokh), but I don't think that fact is relevant to the arguments he's made here.
Aaron,
We should give Professor Leiter's opinion exactly the value it deserves. He's writing from a position of nearly-perfect security, as a tenured professor at a private university.
Of course he doesn't value anonymity. From his standpoint it just allows the common people to write things which at a minimum dilute the message of those who matter and at worst criticize them.
Here's a little story. I once mildly criticized a prominent right-wing blogger via email, by asking for proof of a particular claim he made. He then posted my full name, together with a derogatory epithet. This is still one of the things you see if you google my name, years later.
What do you suppose a prospective employer would do if they check this?
What Leiter and those like him fail to take into account is the malignity of people, and particularly on the right. Until there are penalties which can be imposed for such, pseudonymous or anonymous commenting will be wise, and those like Leiter simply self-serving.
"We should give Professor Leiter's opinion exactly the value it deserves. He's writing from a position of nearly-perfect security, as a tenured professor at a private university."
What better example could there be of the advantage of non-anonymity?!
Knowing that the author is a "tenured professor at a private university" is (I agree) relevant and puts the comments in some sort of context, (though I don't agree that it negates the comments.)
Look, isn't is obvious that there is consensus that
1. non-anonymous writing is to be preferred;
2. there are good reasons why someone might choose to be anonymous.
Seems pretty simple.
Yes, I can also see value in anonymity in certain circumstances. NOT knowing the identity of a writer forces one to take the writing on its merits and without reference to/reliance on authority. I guess it's just a judgment on which is more valuable for public conversation. (University exams or job applications might be examples where anonymity is preferable.)
C2H50H:
Fair enough. I think the principal weakness of Leiter's argument is that 1) most people lack the job security he enjoys; and 2) this lack of job security by itself is probably an adequate basis for anonymity. Therefore, it's hard for me to see how one can make it one's general principle of action not to respect the claimed need for anonymity (because the claim would usually be justified).
That said, Leiter as usual, puts the relevant issues about as clearly as they can be put.
David,
I submit to you that, absent his position, Leiter's comments would be totally ignored.
He's simply a walking appeal to authority, and his arguments, absent that authority, are empty of worth. I, for one, found them far less worthwhile than those of the person he was responding to.
Sure, in a perfect world, nobody would need to hide anything. I don't know if you've noticed, but our world is far from perfect. Until such time as that perfection is achieved, we'll have to deal with the imperfections as well as we can -- and anonymity is one way of coping, and not the least valuable.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home