And another thing…

NightJack shouldn’t have been unmasked, but the Times should keep it’s leader columns anonymous. Arguments should be judged on their own merits, not according to the authority, or lack thereof of, the author.

Well said Mr Harris

I can’t agree. This chap has put his views into the public arena and, as such, has made himself a public figure worthy of press attention.

I think this is all getting a bit silly, if it was not already silly to begin with. With a blog like Night Jack’s, which won the Orwell Prize, it’s perfectly natural to want to know more about the author including their identity. The idea that there should be a legally enforcable right to prevent anyone disclosing the identity of an anonymous author, if the author has given clues to enable it to be worked out, is monstrous.

Meanwhile Daniel Finkelstein makes a very good point about those so-called “anonymous” Times leaders. You might have more point if you were to target Times obituaries – or even Telegraph ones, cf Lord Michael Pratt.

Tom,

You are of course correct. As is Guido. I do fear though that you may have gone too far this time. You might not have suffered at Gordon’s hands for your disloyalty in suggesting he should resign, but I fear agreeing with Guido may be too much for him to handle…

Out of interest, if you got kicked out of the Labour party would you stand as an independent or a ‘lib’-'dem’, or not at all?

Richard. If that’s the case then surely Guido is correct? Or didn’t you bother to actually read the post? It seems to me one of those “You can’t have it both ways” things – if NightJack didn’t deserve anonymity then certainly the Times’ leader column writers deserve the same treatment? Anything else would be sheer hypocrisy!?

@ Zorro
“If that’s the case then surely Guido is correct?”

Actually, I honestly don’t think that an ‘editorial’ article in a major newspaper is the same as a blog.

Comparing the two (and then arguing “if then, therefore”) is just mischief-making.

o/t but I see the BBC has decided that there is no conflict of interest between Alan Sugar working as a government peer (with special responsibility to promote apprenticeships) and his hosting a publicly funded television show about apprentices.

So that’s all sorted then.

I have to say I utterly agreed with Guido until I read Daniel Finkelstein’s comments on the matter.

I’d now argue that it’s completely fair to say that an unsigned leader in a paper is not the same as an anonymous article.

It’s the view of the paper as a collective, overseen by the editor and representative of the papers stance on issues.

By the way, I consider the ousting of NightJack a scandal, but that doesn’t alter the point which is that the two are different issues.

Hmmm, I would put it that a better comparison than the leader writers would have been The Times’ unattributed lobby sources.

The Observer “It’s the view of the paper as a collective, overseen by the editor and representative of the papers stance on issues.”

Isn’t that the point though ? It should be a collective viewpoint but do we really believe it is, that it can be ? When a Times leader argues for a smaller BBC is that the view of a collective of times employees/editors or just the owner who coincidentally runs BSkyB ?

The obvious way to show would be to show the names of who agrees with the viewpoint.

OR – the outing of Nightjack was completely wrong and should have been kept confidential. As should the opinion piece in Newspapers.

Quite right. Kamm – don’t know what it is about him – but he sticks in my craw. Comes over as VERY arrogant.

Guido may occasionally…well, often… fart in the cathedral, but his blog is an exemplar of freedom of speech under terms of anonymity.

He’s entirely right in this instance, and so are you for supporting him.

The Times has behaved miserably in this instance and Guido, in all his vulgar rectitude, is laudable.

I totaly agree with you Tom.

Its thanks to Labour interfearing in peoples private lives that has created this ” Nothing is private anymore” culture.

Tom – I concur. As others have pointed out elsewhere, I look forward to the Times naming ’sources close to …’ and ‘a spokesman/woman for …. said’.
Hard to think of circumstances when, applying their own criteria on this, it would not be in the public interest, and surely we, their readers, have the right to know how authoritative the ‘close source’ is.

Hypocrisy!!

So leaders are written by multiple writers and then re-written by other writers, then approved by the editors who probably change a few words around too.

Hardly the same as a blog written by a single individual.

This thread is the latest on this site to have produced what I reckon is a good discussion with solid, countering arguments on both sides. I love blogging, me…

It is said that one of the (many) last refuges of scoundrels is the conflation of things what ought never to be conflated. I fear, Mr H, that that is precisely what you and Mr Staines are doing in this case.

Leaders in reputable newspapers are in hardly any way comparable with anonymous jottings on a blog. The former are “peer reviewed” and reflect the stance of a corporate entity. The latter are produced by an individual with who knows what strangely shaped axes to grind.

But Brian Hughes, if blogs are in effect musings ‘…. produced by an individual with who knows what strangely shaped axes to grind,’ why is appropriate for a national paper to remove their anonymity?

I don’t see that naming the authors is incompatible with it being a Times leader.

If a firm of lawyers or accountants issues a report, it will do so in the name of the firm and should be of such quality to reflect the standing of that firm. However, the covering letter will clearly name the authors to be contacted.

Similarly a leader should carry the imprint of the Times, but the authors should be stated in the small print. By their work shall you know them.

You have a good blog today,the Trolls are studying expenses.

I agree, and I have nothing more to add. So here’s my funnies of the day for your amusement/use to break in your delete key some more:

15 examples of bad english abroad: http://swick.co.uk/index.php/2009/06/15-examples-of-bad-engrish/

A chart showing the strength of Lego’s: http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/song-chart-memes-strength-legos.jpg?w=504&h=478

Be careful what you wish for: http://pictureshare.org/images/49fbe6f0214798f964c6d07f033adb55.jpg

Oh, and the iPhone is referred to as “the Jesus phone” by those who don’t like it and want to mock people who do. The reason being is that “normal” phone’s cost about 50% less or free on contract, and have more features. Therefore the only reason you can like the iPhone is if you enjoy fellating Steve Jobs and are a rabid apple fanboy apparently. Steve Jobs is also referred to as “Jesus” btw for the same negative reasons.

Personally, I quite like and enjoy my iPhone despite what others say.

If any of you don’t think I’m real, touch my scythe. Go on, don’t be shy. It won’t kill you… or will it?

“I refuse to believe that that case has yet been made.”

I wonder if it would be helpful to the debate to look at the judgment of the Court in this case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html

This seems to be a lot more helpful than press reports in understanding the public interest implications of this case. While I may or may not agree with it, I think it’s quite handy.

@pendolino 8.09 pm:

“You have a good blog today,the Trolls are studying expenses.”

You must have forgotten that the expenses scandal crosses parties but how very New Labour your comment is -

disagree with uncontrolled immigration = racist;
disagree with broken manifesto promise on Lisbon Treaty/smoking ban exemptions = Little Englander/selfish, murderer;
disagree with hysteria on OPG climate change = denier;
disagree with equality legislation = sexist/homophobe;
disagree with New Labour = Tory troll

[...] relating to the whole sorry NightJack affair that I’d hate to go unnoticed. In shock news Tom HarrisMP agrees with Guido that as the Times dislikes anonymous articles so they should cease thier [...]

Sorry, but this is one of those rare occasions when I think you;re talking bollocks.

“I have the right to make my views public while keeping my identity private”

How is that defensible, coherent or honest?

@Doug

So everyone should be forced to nail their colours to the mast at all times?

Against secret ballots for election voting are we?

What about people like me, who are in our 20’s but embarking on a career in the professions. Should I be forced to have all my political views stored and searchable for all to see, despite the obvious negative effect it would have on my career should prospective employers google my name and find them? What if they don’t like their employees to be politically active, even if it’s just a blog or series of blog comments? What if they disagree? What if in 20 years society has moved on? What if I have, and look back in 20 years with embarassment as some of my views? Should they be allowed to adversely effect me later on?

There are all sorts of legitimate reasons for keeping your identity a secret. Part of living in a free society is that it should be optional.

The internet has been a resounding success because of it’s anonymity. Do you remember how the internet took off? There was the young internet, and then there was Microsoft’s offering called “The Microsoft Network”. You see, Microsoft was sure that no-one wanted an unregulated mess where everything goes, they wanted a carefully regulated and safe environment which is what the Microsoft Network was going to provide.

The Microsoft Network sunk without trace while the Internet became the ever present behmoth it currently is. The best way to kill the internet is to turn it into what the Microsoft Network was going to be.

[...] 2: Tom Harris has what I regard as an indefensible defence of DC Horton, while Oliver Kamm calls it the way I see [...]

[...] with civil liberties, Tom Harris MP defends the right of blogger Nightjack to remain anonymous (or, to be precise, pseudonymous), while [...]