The Nature of Identity

by Dirk Hoag on Feb 7, 2007 9:51 AM EST Comment 8 comments

One thing that struck me in all the furor lately regarding NHL access for bloggers is the issue of identity - many seem to think less of bloggers like Eklund who try to remain anonymous. So I wanted to throw that question out to my readers; does my semi-anonymity* help or hurt the credibility of this blog?

Now, I don't treat my identity as a state secret, and readily share my contact information where needed; for example, with the Fox Sports folks. If the opportunity for NHL access came up, I'd certainly deal openly with them. I maintain a semi-anonymity here for a couple reasons:

1) I don't feel any particular need to see my name in pixels from coast-to-coast, and
2) Frankly, I think "The Forechecker" is a little more memorable than my meatspace ID.

So whattaya think? Should I go ahead and be more open, to establish credibility, or does it not really matter, since I don't claim to have any particular access or information not available to the general public? I'd be interested to get your thoughts...

*And by semi-anonymity, I mean that with a click or two from this page you could easily find my name. The question is whether I need to include it on the front page as well.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wait - "The Forechecker" isn't your given name? That's it, I'm done reading this blog...

by JP on Feb 7, 2007 11:58 AM EST reply actions

I think the anonymity thing is only an issue when guys are running around claiming to have "inside info" and such. Your work here is both good and credible - which is all we (the reading public) need to know really know about you.

by Kent W. on Feb 7, 2007 4:00 PM EST reply actions

Your no claiming to have any inside infomation, nothing you post is beyond what the egeneral public has easy access to so I don't feel your identity is relevant in any way.
If you followed the path of Eklund and began claiming you had personal contacts within the NHL, and stated definitively things that would only be known to those aforementioned 'contacts' then it would become a serious issue.

by Rand on Feb 7, 2007 5:50 PM EST reply actions

Ditto all that, there's no problem at all using a handle.

Re: Eklund, I frankly don't care that he's anonymous per se; what I object to is that some folks in the media treat him like what he does has some value (i.e. that he *does* in fact receive inside info), yet I haven't ever seen any evidence of it.

I've rarely gone to his site -- am I missing a lot of scoops that actually bear out? That's my question, I guess: when he comes on my radio, is there a reason I should listen?

by Matt on Feb 7, 2007 6:48 PM EST reply actions

I don't think most people have a problem with bloggers wanting to be anonymous. However, Eklund is charging people for access to his site claiming that he has these sources. You aren't charging people money to read your website so I'm fine with not knowing your name.

I've been upfront with my name mainly because I'm hoping to go into Sports PR and I'm hoping by getting my name out there, it may help me down the road.

by Christy Hammond on Feb 8, 2007 4:24 PM EST reply actions

I have no credibility whatsoever, so for me, it's a non issue. (HA!) But if you are offering opinions and the like, using a handle is fine. And restraunt reporters use handles in the MSM all the time without a problem.

If you are making claims about your background, and claim sources, then you should be able to verify them, in some way. If you can not, or are unwilling, then you shouldn't be in the game.