TBC columnist Leonel Martinez explains why he no longer comments on blogs in today's column

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in this?

In this day of cyber-stalking and with the heated debates that go on, you take your life in your hands if you post your name on the Internets.

Just ask Kathy Sierra about the perils of posting your name on a blog. And all she blogged about was computers and programming.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...

Sam,

How about responding to Martinez' column on blogging and not his views on immigration?

I swear, some people are so monolythic in their thought patterns.

I post my name and picture, and so far I'm still alive and not badly bruised with the opinions I've expressed on blogs

Your posts are pretty innocuous, Steve. You tend to shy away from heated waters, except to pour cold water on them.

It's just that I believe in signing my name to what I write.

As a journalist and representative of the Bakersfield Californian, it is your duty to sign your name. Just as it is for Martinez. That's why I found his column to be hypocritical and self-serving.

but I hate the anonymous key. We need to eliminate that -- the sooner the better.

I wholeheartedly agree. The anonymous feature allows for sock puppets, repeaters and it's confusing when several of them are posting in the same blog. I find myself re-reading posts to find out if it's the same person as before.

I agree.  Lose the Anonymous button.

Even some of the Founding Fathers published under pseudonyms.  I also contribute under my real name to the Californian's letters-to-the-editor column, but as noted above there are valid reasons for using pseudonyms online. 

.

Then, there are pseudonyms and pseudonyms.  I've noted several times that the Californian knows who "Randomfactor" is.  I trust them not to reveal that improperly.

.

But as for Martinez' observation that blogs "all too often" dissolve into insults and name-calling, I say he needs to visit a higher class of blog.  The ones *I* post at don't do that--for various reasons.  The Californian actively polices behavior.  At DailyKos, there's a user system that "hides" inappropriate comments by vote (and yes, I know some feel that itself is censorship.)  At Eschaton, the clueless are mocked mercilessly but otherwise tolerated, unless they use technical means to try and crash the conversation.

.

Now, it's true that right-leaning blogs may be different.  As in the old lawyer joke, 99 percent of the right-wing blogs give the decent ones a bad name.

.

To generalize about all blogs from the behavior of some makes as much sense as saying the Californian is a sensationalist tabloid because Weekly World News publishes pictures of George W. Bush shaking hands with an alien.  (You *KNEW* I'd have to work Bush into the topic somehow, right?)

I'm opinionated, I don't work for the Californian, I try to respect other bloggers and  I'm not anonymous.  Works for me!

Due to my profession(s), using a true identity is discouraged.

I'm in the same boat with this issue. When I started contracting with the feds, I had to sign an agreement I wouldn't advertise (all my business has to be by word of mouth) and that I wouldn't post on Usenet or blogs using my real identity.  It sucked, but I wanted the contract.

I'd like to ask Martinez if he feels there's a material difference between the current practice of using "anonymous sources" in print and TV journalism to advance a point of view, and using anonymous comments on a blog to do the same thing.

.

If he feels that the difference is that the reporter at least knows who the "anonymous" leaker is, I'd like to know the last time he, personally, "burned" or identified such a source publicly in response for being given inaccurate information.  The only time I can think of it happening is in the Valerie Plame case, and that was under court order.

Here's another reason I don't use my real name in blogs:

There's too many dangerous rightwingers out there.

The loonies are on both sides

Not the violent ones who will go to lengths to carry out their threats.

I give you Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudoph as examples.

I read his article this morning in the "old press," and I could totally relate to where he is coming from.  My solution, lately, as been to try to stay away from potentially controversial topics as much as possible. 

I've come to the conclusion that it is as unwise to discuss religion and politics on blog sites as it is in the workplace. 

Does that mean I will never enter those forbidden territories on the web again?  I won't say never, because I'm not always wise, but I do think it is wise to avoid those touchy subjects on blog sites. 

Therefore, when we inject religion into politics, we force confrontation -- because when something is made into a political issue, it will become the object of intensive discussion.

If we don't want to see and hear the things we hold sacrosanct get ravaged and smeared, then we shouldn't make them into political issues.

That's one reason why protecting and preserving freedom -- and the institutional structure to ensure it -- is my top priority.  If we can ensure (and better yet, respect freedom), then there is no need to agonize over our dearest beliefs getting turned into political pinatas.

It's a personal choice really.  If you want to avoid immature, cheap shots and hostile insults, stay away from topics like religion and politics.  I can anticipate that the argument will be this: Then the bullies win! 

Well, I'm okay with them winning in the blogosphere if it means avoiding their vitriol.  It's a Pyrric victory and they won't win in the real world.  The blogosphere is an artificial world that is really quite unnatural.  It can bring out the worst in all of us, so I suggest that folks who don't like getting insulted and disrespected just avoid those regions where it is most likely to happen. 

If everyone were as mature and as intellectually developed as Hardliner is, there would be no problem, but there are too many who prefer to make the blogosphere their own personal arena for hating on people, target practice, and for simply spewing forth their hostility and immaturity. 

That's completely uncalled for Anon.

I disagree with much of what Steve says, but I not only respect his views, I welcome them and look forward to them.

It's posts like yours which show just how important it is to eliminate the anonymous account option here.

you are the only groupie to jump to his defense

If you think I'm a groupie, then you obviously don't have a clue. But then you've made that abundantly clear.

As for you GRP, you are a dishonest anonymous blogger

Considering how you think I'm a Steve groupie, how can you claim I'm something you're ignorant of?

The sooner the likes of you are eliminated from the Californian's blogs, the better.