Hidden Agendas
By Adam Platt
The veil of anonymity that much of the world uses to pontificate over the Internet has always puzzled me. We have become a nation of exhibitionists, over-sharers, personal bloggers, self-publishers. Most do that under their own name and often include a stylish photo. But virtually all the rest of online pontificating and commenting is done under pseudonyms.
Several of my friends and former colleagues comment to Brian Lambert’s blog on this site. One of them is an acclaimed local author and journalist. I asked him once why he didn’t comment as himself, and he said he really had no aversion to it and assumed most of his friends and colleagues knew it was him. It was just the 'Net culture to make up a witty handle.
He's no villain, but I found his answer unsatisfying because a lot of the Internet’s culture is sort of sick, and when serious and credible entities dive into that pool, they often emerge slimed. Take City Pages and its parent, Village Voice Media, once one of the more admired, independent publishers in alternative journalism. According to a very convincing series of articles on Ed Kohler’s website, The Deets (and well-chronicled by Brauer and Lambert), VVM is apparently using its websites and the Internet culture of anonymity to scam people.
The methods are myriad, from stealing photos and stories off the 'Net to use without credit, to “Digg”-ing its own blog posts to make them appear better read, to having its advertising staff anonymously comment to create the impression of a high volume of user “reviews” on a local entertainment site it owns. It’s all about creating the illusion of high relevance and popularity for advertisers and readers. It’s despicable.
Media have long exaggerated their circulation/use, which is why audits and ratings services came about. For now, though, the Internet is the Wild West. Anyone can publish, anyone can fake, and advertisers are thoroughly confused, meaning Internet “readers” are worth only a fraction of what they’ll pay for print readers, so very little on the web is commercially viable. And it’s all driven by the culture of anonymity and the ability of the computer-savvy to game just about any system.
But it gets better. The Deets's Kohler teased his latest CP bombshell but said he needed to raise $50 for his site from users before he revealed it. If he could raise it from CP fans instead, he’d kill the story. This is what you have to look forward to once the Star Tribune is out of business. Brauer called it “tip-jar journalism” with a wink. I didn’t find it as cute.
There’s a high degree of concern about this sort of stuff among us oldsters, but I’m astounded at the lack of interest among the children of the 'Net. Legitimacy and credibility are the foundation of trust, and we seem to be headed to a period where everyone’s working a scam and everyone’s got an angle.
The Internet has given everyone a platform. Not many are worthy of it.






I've been thinking about whether it would be wrong to accept payments for not writing a story. In my experiment yesterday, I disclosed that I was willing to do this. While the policy may seem wrong, at least there was transparency in the system.
Compare that to lifestyle magazines where the editorial content so often revolves around reviewing advertiser's venues - without disclosure.
Who can you trust?
Posted by: Ed Kohler on February 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Mr. Kohler, seriously? You've had to think about whether or not it's wrong to solicit money to NOT run a story? Look, man, either you want to be taken seriously or you don't. Make up your mind.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on February 18, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Adam:
Of course there are admirable uses for pseudonyms as well. Some of use prefer to write honestly without recourse from a boss (not in the writing business)who may not understand one's need to inform.
Posted by: Sky Masterson on February 25, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I could not agree more concerning Internet journalism. While there are many great examples of online news, in most places it is the Wild West; no oversight and no standards. The good news is the Web has liberated many often unheard voices. The bad news is the Web has liberated many often unheard voices.
What online news is missing is a strong editorial board. However, the Internet is still in its infancy, and, right now, its organization does not lend itself to thorough self-policing. Often its the outcry from readers that takes writers and publishers (or, as in the above case, other writers and publishers) to task for stretching boundaries.
As technology and society evolves, I believe online news will follow. Right now, access is limited. As free, wireless Internet umbrellas blanket the nation, and inexpensive, uncumbersome devices make their way into consumers hands, online reporting will become more civilized. At least I hope so.
Posted by: Juan on March 7, 2009 at 9:34 AM