Comments Posted By John Burke
Displaying 41 To 42 Of 42 Comments
WHELAN APOLOGY LEAVES QUESTIONS UNANSWERED ABOUT BLOG COMMENTERS
I generally think anonymity of bloggers is not wise. But for what it's worth, the Blogfather himself, Glenn Reynolds aka InstaPundit got into this blogging stuff early by posting comments on Slate's Fray around 2000 -- using the pseudonym AGAndroid. As AG, he was anointed as the first "star" poster in the Fray (he later revealed himself). Back then, most of the regular Fray posters, including many of the "stars" (ultimately scores of them) adopted online aliases. A popular star for years, "History Guy," for example, turned out to be Philadelphia lawyer Arthur Stock. I was the 12th person to be names a star poster -- in March 2001 -- under the name, Publius. Had I maintained the Publius online franchise all those intervening years, I might have been more inclined to adopt it when I started my blog six months ago. By then, though, the Internet was crawling with Publiuses, including the one biting at Whelan's ankles. In any case, my wife convinced me that people I knew would think it strange if I didn't use my name, unless I wanted to keep the fact of my blogging a secret from my friends and family. She was right about that.
Still, I see a difference between publishing a blog and posting comments on a site. I don't think any of us in the early Slate Fray thought we were hiding behind our handles. Even though we regulars often worked hard on our comments and rebuttals and sometimes thought we did a better job than Slate's contributors, it simply was not our publication and we were not its publishers, so we felt no obligation to state our names. Plus, it was fun to create an online personality that was readily recognized by the other Fray regulars.
When you ARE a publisher, even of a blog that has a tiny audience, I do think you have an obligation to put your name to it.
Comment Posted By John Burke On 10.06.2009 @ 00:33
Rick has a point but mainly because typical working Americans with families (as opposed to students, self-styled anti-globalization anarchists, etc.) mostly don't DO demos.
Big crowds require large-scale organization and time and money. The 1963 civil rights March on Washington, for example, took many months to organize with scores of full-time staffers either paid directly or loaned by one of the six major national civil rights groups and massive aid from the UAW, other unions and Jewish organizations, etc. For all that, it's 250,000 people was dwarfed in later years by anti-war and other protests.
On the other hand, Al Sharpton's more recent use of "direct action" has been a far more seat of the pants affair driven by Rev. Al's keen PR sense. Most of his demos feature the same 100 or so Black nationalist cranks and aging Trotskyites -- but (curiously) no one notices the missing "masses" because Al always manages something colorful and newsworthy.
So conservatives -- or just plain folks who can see the taxes looming ahead -- can make an impact without huge crowds. It will take a bit of creativity though.
Comment Posted By John Burke On 1.03.2009 @ 00:32
