Op Ed: 'By-Line' Reflects Responsibility and Full Accountability

Messengers shape the message, but readers must know the source for any credibility.

(BEND, Ore.) - You’ve never seen a major story in any daily newspaper with the by-line of "Anonymous".

You never will. That 'by-line' means precisely what it states, identifying WHO wrote what you are about to read. It is journalism’s ethical way of identifying the writer(s) to reassure readers of responsible credibility and full accountability.

That reflects the demands of our social compact in civilized conversation: You know to whom you speak and then listen. That’s commonsense demand for any conversation.

Journalists learned very early on that to deserve reader trust and confidence, story content and essential background must be honestly and openly presented.

They and their readers also soon learned that some writers can shape any story to make it sound incredibly credible; while alterations cannily laid on are impossible to detect. Far too often, too, even if detected, fact and detail remain missing and readers are doubly-cheated by NOT knowing it.

An entire industry rapidly developed around this "specialized" approach: What we now term "public relations", maintaining a straight face despite the obvious implications!

Politics as well as business seized on its opportunities to manipulate --and even control- many unaware readers, with heavily damaging results to citizen understandings of key issues and events shaping our democracy.

The practice of credible, responsible and accountable writers signing every story, with personal-professional endorsement clearly displayed, assures readers that the content is NOT propagandized nor distorted for any special interest, political or corporate. It is an affirmation that the content does not depart in any way from open, honest journalistic practice.

It has so well-proven its worth, through more than a century of broad applications, that "the by-line" is universally adopted as ethically essential and demanded, if your word is to be taken seriously.

In this rapid age of fast, furious - and sometimes unreliable distribution of information, in many channels, at the imperious choice of the reader, that long-term journalistic practice guaranteeing these two basics for belief - responsibility and accountability becomes more essentially important than ever before.

Every channel we consume is riddled with "special-interest" slices, packets, pieces and bits of "information", neatly wrapped, professionally packaged, rapid/gulp-sized, and easily-swallowed.

What’s more, political, issue, and problem-discussion channels are now more than ever overwhelmed by “anons” and the ubiquitous "single-name" purveyors and perpetrators. They are set on seizing our interest, dominating our already-strained attention for just so long as we will allow them so to do.

Far too much of what passes for “debate”, "discussion" or even honest "dialog" comes nowhere near qualifying as the honest, open, civil and socially-acceptable "conversation" that John Dewey described as a foundation for democracy.

Dewey was reflecting what went on relentlessly with mutual learning, leading to rational, reasonable decision among the Founding Fathers --as demonstrated in the Federalist Papers.

The Founding Fathers never hesitated for confrontation and continuing, constant and cogent further-inquiry, representing a broad range of interests reflecting the society of their times. But they retained conversational courtesies and personal aplomb even when at their most-contentious, at cross-purposes, forcing the compromises which are consequential to effective dialog.

There is no question they were "the elite". Their whole drive and continuing major interest was first and foremost to protect and project their private concerns --on the solid basis of their common experience showing that continued prosperity for leadership elements was really demanded, if the “ship of state” was not only to "stay afloat", but to be so set up that it could survive the storms of centuries-to-come.

That’s "the way the world works" - and their approach has been world-recognized now by the strength and breadth of the then-new opportunities they made possible for mankind across the world.

That they succeeded so admirably, via the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and other demonstrably unique and concentrated tools for development, protection and further growth of a democratic republic is to coin a phrase - "a record for the ages".

We do them and ourselves a very serious disservice when we stoop to invective, attack, vilification, and other common resorts for personal-protective statement of our feelings "under attack", simply because someone in ANY channel disagrees with our point of view.

Sometimes our understandings about an issue, event, occurrence, legislation, or other common issue for dialog seems "under attack", as interpreted by our "emotional intelligence", which often overrides our otherwise rational and reasonable cogitation.

What can keep us on the straight, sometimes narrow, and always difficult to protect and preserve path is the simple decencies demanded of us all; whenever we indulge and enjoy a face-to-face conversation with our colleagues, compeers, and others, in the huge cohort we can now reach through this open, honest, safe, and democratic dialog-channel.

Opinionated, knowledgeable, educated, experienced or not- who are you? Why are you so hesitant to use your full, true name? Fear? If you, the anonymous writer, are to participate in a fully "on the table" discussion, we should know who we are speaking with.

What you need not fear, here, any longer, is the kind of nasty retaliation visited on some of us recently via personal/professional attack, with vituperation and malign comment meant to hurt, humiliate and hasten departure from dialog.

That is occurring across the nation, in a desperate attempt to achieve one of the major propaganda goals of the neocon cabal now forced into 'wild' work to defend, at ANY cost, the depressing and dangerous consequences of the long-followed national policies from which we all are now so visibly suffering.

Do not be put off "the main point" of our S-N reporting by such seductive statements made seeming-solid simply by repetition and resounding restatement.

The facts are there for you to "see with own eyes" and think about with your own brain, as we repeatedly state here when sending to you simple links for that very purpose: To experience and then evaluate what has helped us in the study demanded to create any real "opinion".

Simplified "belly-button feeling" is now so often substituted by those whose real purposes are NOT to share and enjoy mutual further learning, but to satisfy psychological urges and political purposes at your expense in attention and time-and-effort. Our courageous sponsors and editors here -Tim and Bonnie King-- are both experienced, sensitive and solid journalists, with proven background provided to you in depth and detail in our Staff-section.

Others on staff assignment here also enjoy that kind of solid preparation for their current assignments, open to your further check and investigation as you see fit.

Can you imagine the heavy load dropped inevitably, remorselessly on their shoulders, to surveil, sensitively-read, and clearly understand the entire content of each and every Comment, prior to acceptance and the privilege of publication?

Though many comments are brief, and by first-time visitors, it is understandable that a full name may not seem necessary, as it is not mandated by our system. However, for the ongoing discussions and debates that exist, it is only fair to demand full-ID from those who insist on "hiding behind a tree" via partial-name and/or "anons".

They need to come out from that once-safe but no longer secure chosen isolation, when asked to supply responsibility and accountability, as in proper "by-line" common usage throughout journalism.

Refusal is in itself admission of not only bad faith but of something amiss, as if all credibility will be stripped away if ID is revealed. If you stand for something, say it proudly. Why be anonymous?

It is highly UNfair --and increasingly dangerous both to the Salem-News channel and its proprietors and staff-- to deny such responsibility and accountability when a Comment is further-challenged by other participating writers.

In any democratic milieu, citizen participation and driving interest are the absolute necessities for successful continuation of that democratic regime furnishing liberty to all, while avoiding undue license leading to perpetrations similar to what we observe every day now, at nearly every level and location in our democracy.

For that, proper participation and honest contribution to the realities of democratic propagation, self-regulation with sensitivity to others and respect for democratic traditions is surely demanded.

What we do here, now, with this open, honest, safe-and-secure channel can prove what we know is right and reasonable, or it will demonstrate what will happen --inevitably--when “the lowest common denominator” is allowed to dominate, denying your rights, and eventually destroy this new channel.

Like all else "in the media" today, continued existence here must depend on advertiser support, at least as much as honest participation by the readership.

HOW you Comment and what you send can "make-or-break" this ongoing opportunity for all of us to exercise our Founders-created rights of free expression and flourishing mutual dialog to build understandings and guide our proper --and democratic-- mutual actions.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Godsofchaos January 7, 2008 5:00 pm (Pacific time)

"sure you duidn;t just wake up after dreaming of the movie The Goonies, Nate?"Neal Feldman LOL. I knew they couldn't handle my life story. This is why I didn't ID myself before.

Neal Feldman January 7, 2008 4:28 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos - why does your 'history' sound like a cheap B movie plot? Sir Francis Darke huh? LOL Turned into monsters? Sure you duidn;t just wake up after dreaming of the movie The Goonies, Nate? LOL! Ah well...

Godsofchaos January 7, 2008 2:03 pm (Pacific time)

"Only gold Cadillac I ever knew was driven by Don White, my DC boss and main lobbyist for educational forces for NDEA."Henry Ruark Why would I care I a treasure hunter not a thief. I only look for things that aren't owned by anyone.

Henry Ruark January 7, 2008 11:56 am (Pacific time)

Vic, GofC, et al: Only gold Cadillac I ever knew was driven by Don White, my DC boss and main lobbyist for educational forces for NDEA. Was also specially white upholstered, had small bar built in, and became notorious on K Street for transporting big-shots and other bigs of different character. Albeit mileage terrible even then, we passed NDEA with Sen. Wayne Morse's assistance over even-then neocon determination to sabotage ANY added strength for education.

Godsofchaos January 7, 2008 10:46 am (Pacific time)

".it was pretty shot out."Vic Did you mean pretty shot up? Even with the damage can you tell me its worth. "It was gold, but was not a city or a statue"Vic How much gold are we talking about? How much do you think it is worth?

Vic January 7, 2008 9:56 am (Pacific time)

I actually FOUND the lost El Dorado twelve years ago while hiking up above Mosier, Oregon. It was gold, but was not a city or a statue..it was a car..a Cadillac. We just left it there.....it was pretty shot out.

Henry Ruark January 7, 2008 6:44 am (Pacific time)

GofC: Seems I read that story long ago, and you, again, as ever, distorting/perverting plot and "obfuscating" final ending. Am almost tempted to remark: "Ah, Well !!" --but fear then accusation of stealing fellow writer's good stuff.

Godsofchaos January 6, 2008 12:57 pm (Pacific time)

"Whatever it is, your ID will make it much more meaningful --and acceptable, too."Henry Ruark You win. I tired of defending my anonymity. You wanted my ID so here it is. My name is Nate I am a descendent of Sir Francis Darke. I am a professional treasure hunter. You should know about me. I had a news reporter follow my exploits. She even helped me fight off pirates. Sully is my co-worker and helps me search the globe for gold. I have several skills such as firearms training, can climb almost any surface and can read Spanish. In my last adventure we searched for the lost treasure of El Dorado. It was a statue and not a city. To make a long story short it ended up being cursed and made people monsters but who knows maybe next time I finally hit the jackpot. You never know what you well stumble across in uncharted lands.

Godsofchaos January 6, 2008 12:20 pm (Pacific time)

"sure to come, sooner or later, since man's destiny is to be truly free, and destiny wins out over desperate oppression every time, as history surely teaches us."Henry Ruark Are you implying that me and my ilk are trying to oppress you?

Henry Ruark January 6, 2008 6:14 am (Pacific time)

Reader and Vic Pitmann: Thank you both, first for your appreciation of reality here and only then for what we are doing to offset damage both to this channel and to our ongoing democratic dialog which is a main defense today for what's left of our republic, once built on real democracy deep enough and demanding enough of its citizens to win worldwide attention and approval. Neocon attack is purposive desperate attempt to kill off any, all such channels,making sure citizens stand frightened and silent while first fascism and then feudalism are restored, with robber barons riding high over every serf, and only escape left another violent revolution --sure to come, sooner or later, since man's destiny is to be truly free, and destiny wins out over desperate oppression every time, as history surely teaches us.

Henry Ruark January 6, 2008 5:49 am (Pacific time)

To all: Sorry about inadvertent "anon" Comment, obviously mine own. Let me add this, which seems to substantiate several statements here for sure, not necessarily mine: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Anonymous January 5, 2008 6:04 pm (Pacific time)

GofC: Welcome is as welcome does. Most Comments here are welcome, so long as they avoid precisely the kind of attack we now have shown to be under way here. Your explanation beyond that seems to me to be less than either reasonable or rational, but I know that reflection from very extended experience in dealing with such will only seem to you that much further into the very full grabbag of how-to-hurt. So that's your opinion, and you are stuck with it; just as the Op Ed is my opinion, and I am stuck with it, too. Sincerely, best wishes to you and I hope you are careful when you talk to strange men, on or off campus.

Reader January 5, 2008 1:28 pm (Pacific time)

Dear Henry, Some time ago I wrote negatively about some of your writing traits. I want to take it back. This article was extremely easy to read, even for someone as dumb as me. Thank you and keep up the good work!

Vic Pittman January 5, 2008 8:01 am (Pacific time)

Right on, Henry and Neal. If you believe in something enough to write on it, then you ought to have no qualms about putting your name on it.

Godsofchaos January 5, 2008 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

"Whatever it is, your ID will make it much more meaningful --and acceptable, too."Henry Ruark Well if you don't trust my intelligence that is your problem not mine. As is why I don't give ID is the very reason you push it. You want power over me. Information is power so tell me why should I give a person, who as far as I can tell hates my guts, power over me? I wasn't born yesterday and realize your true motives. If I gave you my ID you would latch on and say “well your Blah, blah you have no right to speak". You’re just looking for the smallest excuse to get rid of me. I know when I am despised and not wanted. Besides like I said it distracts form the conversation. You could be talking to a brilliant very thoughtful human being that articulated himself perfectly and had one of the most highest level of vocabulary you have ever heard but, then you find out he is a plumber. Now every word is lost because people assume that he is an idiot. Humans are judgmental by nature. The reason I don’t give out personal information is I want people listen to what I say not judge me by what I do for a living. Besides your idea on giving your name out to have a conversation is a very arcane. All you need to know me by is Godsofchaos. You don’t need to know my real name to have discussion with me. You proved that by responding with me. As for real life you have obviously forgotten your academic life. I would, all the time, jump right in the middle of a debate with complete strangers on the campus grounds.

Henry Ruark January 5, 2008 1:39 pm (Pacific time)

GoC: Your remark re disappearance of newspapers will amaze the several millions busy every morning and all day in delivery of more copies now than ever before. True, circulation down for some staid older papers; but hundreds of newer weeklies, some few dailies, still doing 15-20 percent return. Per all else here, documentation still available by ID to editor --why should I set it up, taking time and effort, for some anon-guy behind tree ? Never claimed infallability for reporters; but, if job is to be professionally both responsible and accountable, that surely out-shoots sniping from behind the tree. Re name-exchange for conversation, you deliberately distort clear meaning in Op Ed, which is for meaningful discourse worthy of cogitation, rather than simple passing contact. IF you sensitive person, one of first things you do is seek name (unless you prefer "Hey, YOU !", If issue is at stake for any real dialog, you cannot begin to respond wthout soon seeking something more than your own unconscious contrivance on their relative credibility. Unless you are so sure of own infallibility at reading non-simple clues, which is all you get without that confirming information available only from ID. To do otherwise is to deny and defy human curiousity, on which conversation hinges. Re personal attacks, you seem unable to distinguish intensely-stated points from "attack" --which is why I took time and made effort to point out to proprietors that every single one of my responses is built from words-used by others, if indeed it offers demanded defense. You have my permission to check with them directly to confirm this. "Demented", "no-good DO-nothings" sound friendly and on topic to you ? How about "girly boy"--or even "socialist" ? And there were others, all without any pretext of relevance to the content involved. Those, in context used which determines point and must be seen, too, indicate plainly when attack intended in lieu of further dialog. Check your record or seek archive lines. That explains other line you cited, with documentation on record with Tim/Bon proving point, in preparation for precisely your approach here. Re "I believe I have shown my intellect and what I stand for.", ID resolves full detail on responsibility and also on accountability by making clear much more background/surround and possible ulterior motives. I simply do not believe you, of all people, are not fully aware of that; and you are quite right, your continued refusal proves up point that there must be something more you do not wish all to know. But do not lose sight of fact that my defenses were mounted for the channel, not necessarily for the writer. Until this personal and professional attack, dialog here, albeit tense and tough at times, did not suffer from damages inevitable via some of what has now passed simply by difficulties in interception. At 89, nearly 90, with more than 5 million words approved by editors and published, and most paid for,with work record in journalism, education and management consulting, last thing I need to allow is shots fired in malignity (see words cited above !) from behind a tree. I have other beans to heat, fish to fry, and editors to satisfy, and many, many more sources of more learnings to seek --and other sources in which to share them, too. What else do you have to share here, Friend GofC ? Whatever it is, your ID will make it much more meaningful --and acceptable, too.

Jason January 5, 2008 1:09 pm (Pacific time)

Didn't many writers use pen-names on a regular basis? Ben Franklin, Samuel Clemens, even Stephen King? If I gave my last name, for instance, my identity would be easy to figure out, because I would be the only one in the phone book. Now, I am not ashamed of anything I say, but my wife might not like all of our friends and family to comment on anything I might say. It also gives me the freedom to say things that I might not want my partners or employees to read. There is nothing nefarious about it, though.

Carla January 5, 2008 10:19 am (Pacific time)

I'm among the ranks who *like* you, Neal, and appreciate both your message as well as its presentation. Like you, I disdain cowards who, behind the cloak of anonymity, take shots at those brave enough to express, kindly, their own views, even when those views aren't among the politically correct, popular ones. in the name of diversity and tolerance, people are becoming increasingly less diverse and tolerant, especially of the conservative or religious viewpoint. The less tolerant they become, the more conservative and religious I find myself becoming! Rock on, Neal!

Godsofchaos January 5, 2008 1:38 am (Pacific time)

"You’ve never seen a major story in any daily newspaper with the by-line of "Anonymous"." Henry Clay Ruark You do realize Newspapers are almost non-existent in our society. I don't know a single person under the age 70 that reads a newspaper. They are going out of business for a reason. "It is journalism’s ethical way of identifying the writer(s) to reassure readers of responsible credibility and full accountability."Henry Clay Ruark This statement is true. That is why it’s a job for a reason. However that doesn’t mean Reporters are infallible or biased it just means that pulling Ratergate gets you fired. "That’s commonsense demand for any conversation."Henry Clay Ruark This statement is false. A conversation is an informal interchange of thoughts. Last time I checked you didn't have to give your name to talk to someone on the Internet or in real life. "Why be anonymous?" Henry Clay Ruark You always use personal attacks against me so why should I give you keys to the castle? Besides I believe I have shown my intellect and what I stand for. What more do you need to know? "What you need not fear, here, any longer, is the kind of nasty retaliation visited on some of us recently via personal/professional attack, with vituperation and malign comment meant to hurt, humiliate and hasten departure from dialog."Henry Clay Ruark Good why don’t you start with yourself? You have had plenty of comments that were meant to hurt, humiliate and hasten departure from dialog. I surprised that you seem supportive of this. I thought you were against censorship.

Neal Feldman January 4, 2008 9:18 pm (Pacific time)

Fear is the answer. Anonymity breeds courage in those too weak of conviction and honor to fully stand up and say "This is what I believe, this is who I am, and I cower before no one because of either." From the safety (usually just perceived safety at that) of their little sniper nest they shoot out their little cowardly missives not even understanding this reality. To those of us firmly comfortable in our own skin, as it were, completely accepting of our place in the universe we have no fear in expressing our views openly and honestly in a free society. For those who feel a need for such fear based anonymity ones DOES have to wonder what they have to hide. Some do not like me personally. You know, I can actually live with that. Many disagree with what I have to say or how I choose to say it. I can live with that too. In fact I have i the past put my life on the line to defend their right to do so. Like Voltaire said, I may disagree with what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it. I firmly believe in that sentiment. I believe that speaking the truth is the best way, even if some do not wish to hear the truth. In fact it is especially those who refuse to hear the truth who need it repeated in their presence most often. But force them to accept or even comprehend? I do not believe anyone has the right or power to force that. But to continue to speak the truth, that is, truly, all any of us really can aspire to doing. Nothing else is entirely within our ability to do in full. Ah well...

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: 'By-Line' Reflects
Responsibility and Full Accountability

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News