Who the Fuck is "editorsblog" & Why Does She or He Keep Making Stuff Up About Me?

Progressive Alaska noted yesterday that the well-hidden niche at the Anchorage Daily News, called the Editor's Blog, had posted an essay accusing me of "theft" of a photo by their fine photographer, Bob Hallinen. I found out about the posting through an anonymous comment left at a short essay I had written on Friday, about community reactions to the Snowzilla controversy.

The anonymous comment called me a "thief" for using the picture by Bob of the debris outside of city hall, after a guerilla operation had left a bunch of mini Snowzillas there on Thursday. It provided an HTML link to the essay, by a writer named "editorsblog." That essay, once again accused me of being a thief. It also erroneously stated that I hadn't credited Hallinen for his picture. And, in PA's original essay, I had written, "I'll bet they call me or email me to take down the debris picture I temporarily borrowed from their site quicker than they can come up with their next Pat Dougherty-inspired breaking news story."

I commented at yesterday's version of the ADN blog entry that I had borrowed the picture to illustrate the point, offered in-kind payment for borrowing it, and requested that the erroneous information be dealt with by the anonymous - more accurately, pseudonymous - writer named "editorsblog." I then created a revision to the Friday post, and put up a new one on the subject here at PA.

I also collected on a bet, or so I thought......

Today, I looked at the post at the ADN editors blog. It has been changed. I'm no longer a thief. I'm a "borrower." Whew!

The statement "Munger backhandedly acknowledges that he took the photo from the Daily News, although he apparently removed the photographer’s credit," has been changed today to "if you look hard enough you can find one somewhere on the blog."

That's "editorsblog's" backhanded way of acknowledging the initial essay's error. Uh, "editorsblog," it helps to read an essay before you fucking call somebody a thief, or accuse them of a specific error.

Today's version failed to acknowledge that the Anchorage Daily News has used my photos, as recently as December, 2008, without acknowledging that the photo was mine.

Back to the bet. Somebody bet me at a party a couple of weeks back that I couldn't get Pat Dougherty to write about me by the end of 2008. I thought I had, based on the editor's blog piece from yesterday. But my betting buddy now says, "No, you can't prove Pat is 'editorsblog' unless he actually admits it to you."

After "editorsblog's" essay revisions today, and the dubious methods the way that was handled reveal, I doubt I'll get an open, transparent call from either "editorsblog" or Patrick Dougherty before midnight tomorrow. That's too bad. It's no biggie, though, because the bet's loser has to make a charitable donation to a well-known group in Dougherty's name to start out 2009 in a giving, generous way.

I regard this incident as humorous.

It is so predictable that the ADN will jump on anyone using their stuff in an "unauthorized way." Usually, as I pointed out in Friday's Patrick bait, by email or phone call. It is also predictable, that when caught in projecting a falsehood - "editorsblog's" high-mannered lecture to me and to whomever about copyright laws and intellectual property rights - that no mention would be made in the also predictable self-serving revision (with no addendum that today's version is a revision) of the ADN's violation of those same principles, when using photos supplied by me (and many others).

I'll finish by observing that "editorsblog" predictably attempted to maintain a tone of profound righteousness throughout. And that, indeed, is a meaty part of the humor to those of us in the blogging world and at the ADN (sorry, Pat, you're not in on it), who shared in this little prank.

image - Phil Munger, by Erick