On Greg Jericho, groggate, and the public service.

FFS, the whole Nixon thing happened after events at Watergate, so thats how the scandal became known as the Watergate scandal, NOT THE WATERGATE-GATE SCANDAL!

johnboy said :

The point is that if someone else becomes aware of an identity they are free to accurately attribute it should they so choose.

Absolutely. This is all about choice of action. But many of the ways journalists do things have nothing to do with legislation, rather a self-prescribed code of ethics. And while I understand that Massola was free to out GrogsGamut and that if GG wanted to keep his anonimity he might have been a little more careful with his identity, I do not believe that Massola should have outed GG given the lack of any clear benefits in doing so.

Also, I do not believe Massola’s suggested motivations – and if a journalist doesn’t have the public’s trust in their reporting then what do they have?

(other than their health, of course 🙂 )

johnboy said :

But the idea that there’s a right to blog anonymously? It’s silly.

silly? why, jb? why is blogging any different to any other anonymous publication? which has been rife for aeons. please explain?

one wonders if there is, or should be, legislation to protect the identity of anonymous publications where there is no demonstrated public interest at stake. it should be up to the australian to demonstrate the asserted ‘public interest’ here (as opposed to ‘of interest to the public’, which sirocco has cogently differentiated above) lest they be liable for damages akin to defamation.

Massola is a complete pussy for outing Grug. Typical NewsLimited thug trying to bully an opponent into submission.

But look at the publicity his blog has had today.

Knowing the author, but not realising it was his blog, I find the episode amusing.

And if NewsLtd are going to maintain standards of naming everyone, the next time an ‘anonymous source’ is not named after leaking a story that makes the front page of teh UnOz, I expect Massola to perform a witch hunt to out that source.

Its only fair.

Johnboy, it seems Massola outed GrogsGamut after GG’s criticism of the media and if so it’s just petty

Massola’s supposed motivation for it was that it was “in the public interest” – exactly how was it in the public interest to know GG’s identity? I think both you and Massola are confusing “in the public interest” with “of interest to the public” (and of mild interest at best).

There is a difference between these two concepts.

I’d have thought being hysterical was a requirement to posting.

I find it interesting that this discussion and the one about Andrew Barr’s facebook page have both appeared within in a small space of time. Both deal with content published online using an understanding of privacy that was not shared by those who reported on this content.

This raises the idea that perhaps media organisations have not yet designed/implemented appropriate guidelines for what constitutes appropriate reporting standards for online content. And likewise raises the issue of what on earth these guidelines should be.

For instance the traditional method of determining if a story is newsworthy, is it true? is it in the public interest? etc is perhaps not so useful now. Take for instance the Andrew Barr story. Is it true? Yes, he certainly did post it. Is it in the public interest? yes, he is a minister expressing an opinion about a matter which is of community interest and which is currently under public consultation. So yes, using the old standards it is newsworthy. BUT the comment was made in a forum which has an implied level of privacy, as an earlier poster has alluded to Barr can decide who he does or does not share this comment with. As a minister Barr has many avenues to make these comments publicly should he choose to, however he chose to only share them in a more private forum, as is his right.

The question then becomes whether the public interest outweighs Barr’s right to a level of privacy. I think in this case it does but it is a slippery slope, would the same hold true for a school child posting about a newsworthy event (say a lockdown) at school, for a nurse who writes about patients who have been involved in a car crash etc. Where exactly is the line?

The Massola/Grog debate presents another example of this. Is the unmasking of Jericho true? yes. Is it in the public interest? Not unless you by the Australian’s argument that any derivation from their idea of ideological purity is a punishable offence. Likewise Jericho wrote under a pseudonym, making a clear statement that his work was anonymous and that he wished to maintain a level of privacy, however he also made his work public and to an extent even publicised it. So again, where is the line?

Massola’s defence of his story also alludes to the fact he came to know Grog’s real identity when interviewing him for an unrelated story. As Massola did not name him at the time it is not unreasonable to assume that the interview was given under conditions of anonymity, which makes Massola’s decision to unmask Jericho ethically very questionable, especially from a man who has built his career off the back of quotes from anonymous sources.

So rioters, where is the line? Does privacy exist online at all, and at what point does the public interest override any level of privacy which does?

And Jim, you do get a bit hysterical at times.

I love how you resort to this sort of line when you’ve been told to get back in your box. It’s sweet that you’re so genuinely concerned about others.

If being well-informed about this sort of thing and pointing out the nasty motivations of a national newspaper is ‘hysterical’, then I’ll gladly accept the sobriquet.

At the risk of sounding ‘hysterical’, I must say that it does mystify me that someone who is such a regular poster on RiotAct can’t distinguish between the journalism of a national newspaper and opinions offered on a blog.

The Oz hardly covered itself in glory with this one. At least Jack the Insider outed himself in solidarity. The editorial they ran today is near-breathtaking for righteous hypocrisy from a paper running Henry Thornton and other columns without bylines.

Grog, as George Megalogenis observed, had a good election campaign. He wears his personal reactions somewhat on his sleeve, but it was refreshing to see real analysis of policies on his site. That just highlighted to me the lack of such rigour in other places.

I hope that Grog can keep blogging. The Australian public sphere needs people prepared to think and write like he does.

Just saw this on the ABC news website:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/investigations/contact.htm

What if it’s something about the ABC??

Of course, Greg Jechico was totally unbiased and balanced in his reporting as well.

He wasn’t reporting, he was giving personal political opinions. Which he made clear in his post about his identity being made public by The Australian. The suggestion from The Australian is that his identity deserved to be made known as a matter of public interest – he wrote and published a particularly incisive piece about the coverage of the election campaign by the mainstream media, which was subsequently referred to by the ABC’s MD Mark Scott and may have affected that organisation’s coverage. Therefore The Australian has reasoned that this justifies ending his anonynmity (according to Greg Jericho the journalist had actually known his identity since November 2009).

That claim seems a bit dodgy to me, and to others. But this is the same paper that had a go at bloggers who disagreed with their Newspoll analysis by saying that “we own it therefore we know it better than anyone else does” back before the 2007 Federal election.

Good summary of everything here – http://egovau.blogspot.com/2010/09/when-traditional-media-exposes-public.html.

I see the usual suspects are experts on everything and enjoy their ignorance. Thumper if you read the blog, you would note that it was not “reporting” it was opinion, the fact you can’t tell the difference is surprising given your usual standard.

The fact that so many here are ignorant of or dislike Twitter is good for those who use twitter and those here.

Johnboy the issue was not about maintaining anonymity so much as pseudomity to enable the separation of personal from professional views. The Oz’s action more or less suggest that if you work for the APS you should not have any views they disagree with.

However if you are Godwin Grech & you want to leak to them they have different standards

Honestly, The Australian jumping up and down and pouting that someone is biased is the most hilarious case of hypocrisy I think I’ve ever seen. This is a newspaper known as the Opposition Organ (and as the Government Gazette when Howard was in office).

Of course, Greg Jechico was totally unbiased and balanced in his reporting as well.

From what I’ve seen, he was distinctly less biased than The Australian (a paper that often neglects to run political polling when it doesn’t like the results).

The Australian’s nose was put out of joint by the fact that his blog became quite popular for its withering criticism and insightful analysis of the media coverage of the last election.

And so what if Greg’s blog was biased. Is he not allowed to have an opinion because of his job?

If you’re interested in what Greg Jericho had to say about the matter: http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2010/09/spartacus-no-more.html

He was outed by The Australian because Newscorp view him as an ideological enemy (i.e. he doesn’t like up the arse of the Liberal Party) and they want to get him fired.

Typical bully-boy tactics from The Australian, really.

Honestly, The Australian jumping up and down and pouting that someone is biased is the most hilarious case of hypocrisy I think I’ve ever seen. This is a newspaper known as the Opposition Organ (and as the Government Gazette when Howard was in office).

You want to know the difference between David Hasselhoff and The Australia?

One is a pathetic joke, and the other is David Hasselhoff.

My understanding is that he wasn’t being anonymous to avoid getting in trouble at work.

APS employees are encouraged to do this sort of thing so long as its done properly. Chapters 3 and 15 of APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice has been updated to reflect this.

More than anything, this just seems like a major stuff-up from James Massola.

From Chapter 3 of APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice :

Participating online
Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. In a professional and respectful manner, APS employees should engage in robust policy conversations.

Equally, as citizens, APS employees should also embrace the opportunity to add to the mix of opinions contributing to sound, sustainable policies and service delivery approaches. Employees should also consider carefully whether they should identify themselves as either an APS employee or an employee of their agency.

There are some ground rules. The APS Values and Code of Conduct, including Public Service Regulation 2.1, apply to working with online media in the same way as when participating in any other public forum. The requirements include:

being apolitical, impartial and professional
behaving with respect and courtesy, and without harassment
dealing appropriately with information, recognising that some information needs to remain confidential
delivering services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public
being sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public
taking reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest
making proper use of Commonwealth resources
upholding the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS.
APS employees need to ensure that they fully understand the APS Values and Code of Conduct and how they apply to official or personal communications. If in doubt, they should stop and think about whether to comment and what to say16, consult their agency’s policies, seek advice from someone in authority in their agency, or consult the Ethics Advisory Service in the Australian Public Service Commission.

Agencies may find it helpful to provide guidance and training to employees in using ICT resources, including personal use, the use of social media, and any rules or policies about representing their agency online. It would be particularly helpful to workshop scenarios around some of the more complex or ‘grey’ issues that arise for employees in deciding whether and how to participate online, in the performance of their duties or otherwise, consistent with the above principles.

The Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) Web Publishing Guide (available at http://webpublishing.agimo.gov.au/) helps Australian Government agencies to manage their websites and to identify their legal and policy obligations. The guide includes advice on using Web 2.0 technologies.

Alfred Deakin, when Prime Minister, wrote articles regarding Australian politics for an English newspaper under a different name… he even criticised himself! By the time the paper reached the Antipodes, the articles would have had little impact. In that sense, we’re not experiencing anything new.

They don’t call people on Twitter twits for nothing.

To do anything else while writing in a medium readable by all the world was always, in my opinion, both cowardly and stupid.

So the vast majority of anonymous Rioters are both cowardly and stupid? And if you decided that your public service readers shouldn’t be posting here during the day, that’d be sufficient reason to identify them in a public forum? And if you outed them, and they were a little pissed off by that, they’d be narcissists? And if they stuck up for each other, they’d be unprincipled partisans?

Got it.

Anonymity if desired should be respected if the commentary is not of an illegal nature. Writers, columnists and social commentators have been notorious for anonimity for decades.

Wasn’t @GrogsGamut just anonymous social/political commentary that he wanted expressed without it reflecting on his employer? All up i think it’s a hell of a big deal to be made about anonymous commentary by a blogger.