Saturday, April 11, 2009

The Replies to "An Open Letter to Alan Boraas, Amanda Coyne, Krestia DeGeorge, Mark Dent, Andrew Halcro and Sheila Toomey"

About a week ago, Progressive Alaska wrote to six Alaska writers who had commented in articles, an op-ed, a gossip column tidbit and in a news aggregation, about Rep. Mike Doogan's (D - Spenard) outing of the identity of AK Muckraker, the award-winning pseudonymous blogger who maintains The Mudflats blog.

The questions were these:

1) - Why do you believe it did not merit mentioning in your article or articles that there might be concerns about Rep. Doogan's use of state resources to name a critic?

2) - Why did you not question who had provided the information to Doogan?

3) - Are you now pursuing either of the two above issues?


First of all, I'd like to thank all six for responding, one way or another. I'll print the answers here, going from shortest to longest.

Mark Dent, Alaska Newsreader editor, Anchorage Daily News:

I called Dent, when I didn't get an email answer by Monday afternoon (April 6th). I transcribed the conversation, and emailed it to him:

PA:

PM: Do you intend to answer my email?
MD: Absolutely not.

PM: Is there a particular reason why you won't?
MD: I'm at the bottom of the totem pole at the ADN.

PM: Sometimes you just post links, as an aggregator should.
Sometimes you add comments that could be considered "commentary." Is
there a rubric you follow on approaching this?
MD: I've got no comment.

PM: Is there a set of guidelines you are supposed to follow when
linking to local blogs at the Newsreader?
MD: I've got no more to say to you on anything.


Mark Dent emailed back, writing:

Phil, that's not an accurate transcription of your questions or my answers and you well know it. -- Mark


I responded:

Feel free to correct it, if you have specific phrases you remember.
I'd be happy to make a copy of the legal pad page and drop it by the ADN on my way on work in the morning. You may have said other things besides what I wrote down, but everything I wrote is absolutely accurate, unless you can somehow convince me otherwise.

Phil

On Tuesday morning, I dropped off a manila envelope with a copy of the page from my notebook, recounting the conversation with Dent.

Later Tuesday, I contacted gossip columnist Sheila Toomey. Here is my transcript of the conversation, and Toomey's reply:

PA
I called you today at 1:35 p.m. at the ADN to find out if you had
received my email re Rep. Doogan and the ethics of his using governmentresources to reveal somebody's name to the public, and your coverage - or lack thereof - of that issue in your weekly gossip column.

You stated, " I did. I don't have any comment."

When I asked why, you responded, "I don't really have a comment. I really don't. Thanks, bye, bye.'

You then hung up before I could ask anything further.

If you wish to correct my notes, please be my guest.

Warmest wishes,

Phil Munger


Toomey replied:

Seems about right.


Here is Andrew Halcro's response:

1) - Why do you believe it did not merit mentioning in your article or articles that there might be concerns about Rep. Doogan's use of state resources to name a critic?

If Doogan was receiving communications through his official email, directed to him by the Mudflats blog, from people who were asking him to take action as a State Representative (i.e. pressure to continue to push the Troopergate issue or taking him to task for not), Doogan arguably had the right to respond in the same channel, as a lawmaker.

Although I disagree personally with how and why he did it, I don't believe it violated any ethics rules.

2) - Why did you not question who had provided the information to Doogan?

I feel it's irrelevant. Doogan's first amendment rights give him the same right to out Mudflats as it does Mudflats to start an anonymous blog.

As I wrote in my blog:
There is a bit of irony within the story of the outing of Mudflats; Rep. Doogan's right to free speech gives him the same right to out a blogger as the blogger has to try and keep themselves anonymous.

As a blogger I commonly mention unnamed sources. In fact the Troopergate story was based on the input from people who never would have talked to me unless their comments were not for attribution.

3) - Are you now pursuing either of the two above issues?

No. Governor Palin has criticized me in front of God and country a number of times and I'm still blogging and she is still clueless. It's not who Mudflats is that has contributed to the huge success of her blog while putting herself in the cross hairs, it's her great writing style and what she has to say.

Here is Alan Boraas' response:

Mr. Munger,
Though the title given by someone in the Daily News made it seem the
article I wrote was about Rep. Doogan's "outing," the primary focus of
my column concerned the practice of astroturfing which I believe
jeopardizes the veracity of internet commentary. I used the AKMudflats
"outing" as a way to discuss astroturfing and the problem of
corporations or special interest groups to pose as an individual
commentator or blogger when in fact they are paid writers whose job is
to discredit opposition points of view through anonymous posts often
containing disinformation.

I'd like to hear more discussion about why it is important to write
under a pseudonym and, if its important, how to prevent the type of
astroturfing I described.

Thanks,
Alan Boraas
ps - didn't mention AKMudflat's name in my article so didn't get into the
question of whether the information was accurate or who provided Rep.
Doogan with the information

I don't intend to write further on this subject in the immediate future


Here is Amanda Coyne's response:

Phil: Tony [Hopfinger] and I both wrote stories, so we both answered your questions.

1) - Why do you believe it did not merit mentioning in your article or articles that there might be concerns about Rep. Doogan's use of state resources to name a critic?

First, we believe it's Mudflat’s right to post anonymously. We also believe it was Doogan’s right to name her. We have no evidence that Doogan violated any ethics rules, etc. But that’s not to say that it isn't worth looking at. However, like other independent journalists and bloggers, we have full-time jobs and can only report so many stories in a week for Alaska Dispatch. Lately, we haven't had much time other than to brief stories, edit and post blogs from our contributors, and/or write commentaries on topics we know something about and believe in. In our limited coverage of Mudflats, we wrote a short post about Doogan "outing" her and referenced a story on the issue that appeared in the Anchorage Press. We just didn't and don't have time to do more. (The Dispatch is a labor of love at the moment, so we tend to do stories that most interest us.)

2) - Why did you not question who had provided the information to Doogan?

We would have done so if we suspected the information was false. Just after Doogan sent out his newsletter, Mudflats revealed her name on her blog. This confirmed Doogan's information and we felt comfortable posting a short piece that included Mudflats' name.

3) - Are you now pursuing either of the two above issues?

See first answer.

Here is Krestia DeGeorge's response:

Phil:
If you’ll permit me a long-winded and roundabout response, I want to start by observing that—as one commenter on our site pointed out—the arguments around this issue have tended to break along mainstream media/new media lines. As much as bloggers and commenters tend to look at a paper like the Press as a monolithic old media institution, I can assure you that some of the folks at large, straight news outlets often view us little more than bloggers in print.

I think that truth probably lies somewhere in between. With a newsgathering staff of three, we hardly have the kind of horsepower to throw at a story that the ADN or KTUU does. On the other hand we do have a recognizable name and a distribution system that gets us in the hands of people out in the community that might not otherwise stumble upon our web site.

So we’re in a unique position to examine how the internet and other new technologies are changing in the media landscape without getting caught in that unhelpful “MSM vs. blogs” stereotype (not that that hasn’t kept people from trying to cast us in one camp or the other). And this dust-up—with Doogan citing one theory of journalistic ethics and a community of bloggers and their commenters another—seemed like an instance where we could add something to the discussion.

In this case, at the point I’d written my article, there’d been several blog posts written. Mudflats’ posts in particular had comment after comment of emotional writing piling on about how evil Doogan was and what a saint Mudflats was and what a travesty this was, each feeding the others’ sense of outrage.

I can understand people having an emotional reaction to what happened, but it seemed to me that in the frenzy that followed there was a widespread absence of critical thinking (not a complete one, mind you, just a widespread one) in the rush to sanctify Mudflats and vilify Mike. (And I use the word “sanctify” purposefully here, because the tone of the discussion reminded me a lot of discussions about the finer points of religious orthodoxy among pious folk in other settings.) Specifically, those commenters uncritically accepted the two premises that anonymity is an indispensable component of the freedom of speech, and that that speaking one’s mind—even if the opinions are relatively straightforward ones—is a dangerous thing to do, at least for a liberal.

The point of my column was twofold. First, simply enough, I wanted to let people who might not read Ear or Alaska’s network of liberal bloggers know what had gone down.

And second, I wanted to get some of those already involved in this discussion to think a little bit more critically about what they were saying—especially on those two topics I hinted at a moment ago: First, whether anonymity is as important to the existence of democracy as many of commenters claimed and whether it might not have some downsides, and second, whether the spectre of threats and harassment are good reasons to enter the public dialogue anonymously. When it comes to that second one, I can’t make that decision for someone else, but I believe it’s at least worth pointing out examples of people who faced very serious risks and chose to use their real names anyway.
Which brings us, finally, to your questions: you asked why I didn’t explore the use of government email by Doogan (as a possible ethics violation) or the source of his information. I didn’t do so because those discussions were already well under way in comments sections when I joined this dialogue and I thought it more productive to bring up points that had yet to be addressed. (And neither of questions fit into the narrow scope of those new points that I chose to write about.)

As to your third question—whether or not we’re currently pursuing stories about either—the answer is no, at least not actively. We’re also not actively pursuing any story about potential APOC violations with regard to Jeanne’s hitherto undisclosed link to Alaskans for Truth through her husband.

I expect that someone will file an ethics complaint against Doogan, and someone else will file an APOC complaint against AFT. I also expect that neither will be upheld.

But I could certainly be wrong, and if I am—in either case—we’d likely reconsider whether to run some kind of story.

It’s worth pointing out two things about the Press that are relevant to this last response: The first is that while the Press strives to add some original reporting to the public dialogue, we never claim that everything we do is hard news, or that it all strives to be “objective” journalism. In the case of these columns of mine, they tend to be more lightly reported and rely more heavily on opinion and analysis. I don’t think I’ve ever pretended otherwise.

The second is that we don’t share the ADN’s burden as a “paper of record.” We have limited resources when it comes to staff as well as space and we use them in whatever way we think is most beneficial and interesting for our readers—which occasionally means not continuing to publish lots of updates on stories we write.

Boraas, Halcro, Coyne and DeGeorge responded with considered answers. Dent, I believe, is concerned about the safety of his job, and did not want to engage a person who he has been told or he has noticed, can be highly critical of his employer.

Toomey surprised me, but not much. Perhaps she objected to my categorization of her column on the Mudflats flap as "meretricious."

image of Mudflats regular, Brian the Moose.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Toomey asked people to listen in on other peoples conversations at restaurants and report back to her

she is a dinosaur

HistoryGoddess said...

Interesting comments, or lack of comments. Halcro's statement gave me a bit of a pause:
"If Doogan was receiving communications through his official email, directed to him by the Mudflats blog, from people who were asking him to take action as a State Representative (i.e. pressure to continue to push the Troopergate issue or taking him to task for not), Doogan arguably had the right to respond in the same channel, as a lawmaker."

I did have to chew on this a bit. There was a call to action to contact elected officials, rather than just complain. Doogan was one of them. He would have received mail as a result. So did others. An upset Doogan could have posted on that website, rather than reacting rudely to those who wrote- a rudeness that involved mass e-mailing a mean response that included the private e-mail addresses of others.

We know what all happened. I can see a tad bit of Halcro's point that Doogan would want to know who was behind something that impacted his role as an elected official. BUT, it was HOW he did it and with what resources that Halcro didn't address. Responding "in the same channel" was not done. But, I will say that I did have to think about that a bit.

The other responses didn't surprise me much. It bothers me, though, that some of the arguments end up with more of a "no harm, no foul" tone. Doogan, private citizen, can out people all he wants and that would make him at worst a jerk. Doogan, elected official, abused his power and resources. To me, that remains the central issue. Any argument that strives to minimize or rationalize THAT is a weak one.

I had to read the Krestia DeGeorge article first, and I read the comments as well. Some good points and quite a few rationalizations for Doogan's behavior. I did appreciate the author's response to you- could have EARed you, but didn't.

Thank you Phil for doing this, and thanks to those who took the time to respond. I am not taking them point by point, but that is due to a lack of time. I do want them all to know that their responses mattered. Healthy discussions are a good thing. I have so much respect for those who choose to participate, anonymously or not.

Jan

Philip Munger said...

HistoryGodde - excellent point. I hope to get back to discussing them, later this evening. Off to enjoy Juliana Osinchuk and the ASO perform Tchaikovsky's 1st!

Meanwhile, I hope the comments remain at the extremely high level as that provided by HG on this....

Miko the Mime said...

A journalist said, "Bye bye"? Does she also go potty (or God help her, "pee/poop" and wear jammies but not at the same time?)

I am glad she just does a gossip column and not serious gnus.

HistoryGoddess said...

I'm afraid I didn't give enough props to DeGeorge for the response. One line stayed with me as I walked the dogs:
"I can understand people having an emotional reaction to what happened, but it seemed to me that in the frenzy that followed there was a widespread absence of critical thinking (not a complete one, mind you, just a widespread one) in the rush to sanctify Mudflats and vilify Mike."

Though I would add that the reverse was also true, DeGeorge's point is well-taken. Many of the comments in multiple places were based on emotion. Justified outrage manifested into some name calling that hurt the argument in that it detracted from the central issues. Too many of the comments on all sides begged the question.

I love reading AKM's blog. I read most of the comments. I might have liked Doogan's writing had I even known he existed before a few months ago. I could have hated everything either had written, though, and it still wouldn't change the central issue of the role of a gov't official using gov't resources to harass a private citizen. I care not to whom they are married since being married doesn't mean you give up your own right to independent thoughts (though it might cause a questioning of your judgment.) One shouldn't have to give up rights due to a matrimonial state.

DeGeorge is right in that critical thinking is necessary, and was a bit lacking in some of the arguments.

Doogan was wrong. According to Phil he was courageous in a vote recently, and I applaud Phil for publicly acknowledging that. Rarely are one's actions all bad or all good, though having watched all 8 mini episodes of Palin's last press conference, my last comment might be a stretch.

mlaiuppa said...

Alan Boraas wrote: "I used the AKMudflats "outing" as a way to discuss astroturfing and the problem of corporations or special interest groups to pose as an individual commentator or blogger when in fact they are paid writers whose job is to discredit opposition points of view through anonymous posts often containing disinformation."

That is entirely inaccurate as far as I know. AKMudflats represents herself. She is not a shill of corporations or special interest groups. The fact that others agree with her does not constitute a special interest group. She is not paid. Her job is not to discredit the opposition. Reporting the fact simply turns out that way. As for disinformation, I'd say reading Alan Boraas is probably enough disinformation considering his reply.

I'm disappointed in Halcro. Also in his support of Dan Sullivan.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the time spent on this. And thanks to those who bothered w/a reply.

The negative responses/comments on Mudflats were because the issue was about doogan vs. Mudflats and the commenters there are almost all long-time readers & supporters. If doogan had his own blog he could collect his own supportive comments.

There was also a bit of history w/doogan. His repulsive disgusting emails sent out back over the xmas holidays earned him much-deserved scorn. And I say that as a born & raised Alaskan, registered as a Republican until last year, who wrote him and got back his particular brand of hate.

Long-time Alaskans know that his ADN pieces were often crusty/cantankerous, nothing warm & fuzzy about them. So, one would have to be naive to expect a friendly response. However, a PROFESSIONAL response would have been sufficient.

doogan has earned every bit of scorn, disgust & any other negative feeling attributed to this fiasco, and then some.

The problem with Alaskan legislators is that Alaskans have never before, in large numbers, called on them to be accountable & responsive to their constituents. And really, legislators make decisions that affect all residents of Alaska, not just those in their districts, so they should be open to discourse from those outside their district. If they can't take the heat they need to get out of the kitchen, cuz I don't see progressive Alaskans becoming complacent about their government any time in the near future.

Toomey -- what a hypocrite. Not that she cares what people think of her, she's way past that, has burned too many bridges over the years, a bit of a pariah in plenty of uppity circles.

Lynn D said...

I read the responses twice. My response to these people, who really seem to me are still in the us vs them when it comes to writing and reporting.

That being said I have to say that I would not trust any of them with an anonymity issue. It is ok in their world to use anonymous sources but not ok for a blogger to remain anonymous.

I read this as meaning that if AKM had reported information to them for a story as anonymous they would have jumped on it and protected her as the source, but because she writes her own blog and stories it is just fine to out her. Seems that they have some ethics issues here. You can justify away but what Rep Doogan did was wrong. I agree with everyone else that he did it on state time and resources and that is an ethics problem if not a legal problem.

I would hate think what they would do with a whistle blower situation.

HistoryGoddess said...

Anon @12:11
I absolutely agree that Doogan's lack of professionalism caused the righteous outrage. I also agree that there are many times that decisions impact others outside their districts and even their state. If they don't realize that, they maybe shouldn't be in office.

Lynn @ 5:12 wrote
"If AKM had reported information to them for a story as anonymous they would have jumped on it and protected her as the source, but because she writes her own blog and stories it is just fine to out her."
Good point, Lynn. There did seem to be a bit of a double standard. I also still wonder if AKM had written the same types of things within comment sections, would he still have gone after her in the way he did? Or, could he go after her because she was always in the same place (The Mudflats) and always used the same pseudonym?
Fear of reprisals is real. I used to comment under a name very, very close to my own. That changed with not just Doogan's actions, but with the lack of outrage by both media types and elected officials.

I am not ashamed of what I write, but what I write politically could impact my job and those I work with. I try to be very thoughtful in what I write, but I am afraid that there are others, with great thoughts and valid concerns, who might just decide, "Why bother?"

Yea, I know all the "can't stand the heat/politics is dirty" arguments. But frankly, AK has a crazy governor, and a whole bunch of followers that hunger for red meat. If she's not throwing it to them, those people are looking locally for meat so they can yell "I see it, too!", even if they don’t know what they are looking at. People do need to feel they can speak without the fear of reprisal, especially by government officials, which brings us back to Doogan, whose governmental action was wrong, wrong, wrong!

Anonymous said...

Everyone seems to be missing something here: Mudflats is still up and running and doing better than ever. It doesn't look like it effected her at all. More ads than ever. She's a businesswoman, who's used this to great advantage. She's allowing everyone else to fight this for her, while she just rakes in the hits. Very smart move. Good for her.

Philip Munger said...

Anon @ 8:41 am - rather cynical of you, I'd say. Having known AKLM since August (before Palin's VP pick)and having watched the blog grow since then, and - especially - having discussed the inevitability of AKM being outed with AKM since early September - I have to disagree with the way you've portrayed AKM's current situation.

I didn't ask these questions because of outrage over material damage AKM may or may not have suffered fro Doogan's acts. I asked these three questions because I feel Doogan's use of a state resource to get back at somebody who had been critical of him as a legislator, and the local lack of coverage on the ethics of that act by the media, when combined together, merited the set of questions.

The six sets of answers or non-answers, and the thoughtful comments people are making here, are well worth the huge loss of ad revenue Progressive Alaska has had stolen by that Monster Mudflats blog since the outing.

clark said...

boraas's issue has merits on its own, but it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
his answer reminds me a little of fagan saying that sullivan did as well as he did because 'anchorage voters rejected socialism'.

HistoryGoddess said...

With all due respect, Anonymous, I don't think people are still upset on behalf of AKM, but more on behalf of the principle involved. To say she hasn't been affected, in fact has seemed to thrive, really begs the question. Doogan's actions set a dangerous precedent for gov't interference in the lives of private citizens. Again, I kinda have this thing about the role of gov't...

And I agree, Clark, that the issue of astroturfing, while worth examining, is a separate issue from that of AKM's outing. Unfortunate that the headline of the original article and the inclusion of the "outing" made both arguments rather weak.

Happy Easter and good luck on WAR. He seems like another one who may not quite know the role of government!

Philip Munger said...

"He seems like another one who may not quite know the role of government!"

how I love understatement....

CelticDiva said...

Regarding Dispatch's comment:

However, like other independent journalists and bloggers, we have full-time jobs and can only report so many stories in a week for Alaska Dispatch. Lately, we haven't had much time other than to brief stories, edit and post blogs from our contributors, and/or write commentaries on topics we know something about and believe in. In our limited coverage of Mudflats, we wrote a short post about Doogan "outing" her and referenced a story on the issue that appeared in the Anchorage Press. We just didn't and don't have time to do more.

This is the "journalistic" equivalent of "my dog ate my homework."

Either you have the time to do the story properly, or you shouldn't do the story at all. The parts of the story that were "left out" because of this alleged time crunch caused the entire thing to have extreme bias...starting with one of the first comments made...that Mudflats was a "Palin-bashing blog."

Secondly, there were days upon days when they could have "updated" the article with the rest of the story (according to my phone conversation with Amanda)...that when she started asking more pointed questions of Doogan (like "why") he started yelling at her.

So, I'm not denying the "time" factor. What I find interesting is what "time" allowed them to include while, somehow, they didn't seem to "have time" to include a simple sentence mentioning that fact about Doogan's response.

Nope...no jealousy/bias here...move along...

clark said...

i went to dispatch's site. they seem to be copying huffpo with their banner and other graphics.
i wonder if they know that arianna didn't build her success on going around saying that bloggers aren't real journalists??
a trifle, i know.

simple said...

Boraas' response was empty and evasive. His editorial did approve of Doogan's actions as improving Mudflats' credibility. In his response, he pretends he didn't say that. Halcro and Coyne's responses seemed to begin and end with the simplistic idea that Doogan had a 1st amendment right to reveal Mudflats' name and, by their logic, her childrens' names, schools and medical records. This was not a question of rights, it was a question what is right. Doogan used his legislative office to personally punish someone because he disagreed with her. His actions were childish and destructive. DeGeorge's response was smug and patronizing. She wants people to think more critically because they are just so emotional. Poor children. She goes on to question the importance of anonymity and compare (poorly) Mudflats' desire for anonymity to people like Ben Franklin. Again, this is not a debate about constitutional rights, although it could be. People were outraged when Eddie Burke revealed the home phone numbers of women who were organizing a protest against Palin. Exactly how is Doogan's action any better? Did he have a right to do what he did? Probably. Was it immature, hurtful and ultimately harmful to broad public discourse? Absolutely.

Philip Munger said...

This is perhaps the best comment thread PA has had on an important subject. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed their thoughts to this discussion.

simple said...

I apologize, but I must amend my comment above. Halcro and Coyne excuse their lack of analysis by the simplistic conclusion that Doogan had a 1st Amendment right to publicly reveal personal information about Mudflats that is the equivalent of her right to remain anonymous. Actually, that is not correct. The First Amendment does not grant everyone a right to say what they want. It states that the government will not take action to restrict free speech. The government itself has no right of free speech, only individuals do. Doogan may have had a right to stand out in the park, shouting out Mudflats' name. However, he did not do that. He acted in his role as a legislator and government official to reveal her name. As a government agent, he has no right to hurt citizens in an effort to silence them. In a sense, Doogan has become the Alaskan politician he criticizes - a politician who so identifies his government position with himself that he is entitled to use his offices for personal gain. Doogan using his office to hurt Mudflats for criticizing him is no different from Stevens accepting tribute or Palin using state money to fly her family around.

HistoryGoddess said...

Although this thread is about over and destined to "older posts", I do have to agree with Phil that this has been a thoughtful thread. Good points were made and respect shown for the time people took to respond.

Though the thread may be done, the issue isn't. Especially with the possibility of WAR as AG, actions such as Doogan's misuse of gov't authority could become more common and accepted.

I think many of us are frustrated that something so basic, so fundamental and obvious, has becomes trivialized and rationalized. Worse yet, it may be doomed to being forgotten in the mess that is AK politics right now.

I have no connections to Doogan nor the "lawmakers." Although I didn't see any public smack downs over his behavior, I'd like to think that behind those closed doors, a few wise heads took him aside and counseled him on appropriate behavior.

Thanks, Phil, for taking the time to do this.