I recently sent a piece to Newslaundry marked to Abhinandan Sekhri, who I have known through a friend, and he refused to publish it under a pseudonym. Newslaundry, Sekhri claims, has a policy of no pseudonyms on opinion pieces and reports (it has allowed a few pieces that were pure data crunching exercises with no editorial take since it was done by a team of three people).

I argue why whatever the intent may be (transparency in Newslaundry’s case), forcing people to identify themselves can be a disservice to adding value to debate and dissent.

1) Risk to professional careers

Great perspectives on topics come from domain knowledge acquired during one’s professional careers. People who have the knowledge but have professional day jobs do not want to come out and share their unique perspective because of the risk of professional repercussions.

Let us take the example of a hypothetical Denny Snow, who is a cryptography expert. He wants to write a story on potential government surveillance that he has observed. He approaches a site to publish his findings. The site insists on him using his real name. He accepts the risk and publishes the name. Online discussions and firestorms ensue with his name “Denny Snow” referenced all over the Internet. He now wants to switch jobs or goes for a meeting with a client. The interviewer or potential client googles his name and finds that Denny Snow was embroiled in a discussion about cryptography and they are not sure they want to employ someone who was at the centre of controversial online discussions.

One of the greatest political forecasters of the modern era — Nate Silver – started off writing under the pseudonym Poblano for the Daily Kos, a US-based weblog. A pseudonym offered Silver the creative freedom to write his thoughts without professional repercussions.

Now, by asking for real names, aren’t we blocking out unique and interesting opinions based on real domain expertise?

2) Safety of writers

Some countries are not free. Anonymity helps protect opinions and allows for free voices and reduces personal risks for people. Facebook recently wanted only authentic names on its platform. The premier electronic rights group – the EFF –  argued against it. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

There’s no doubt that reporting can—and has been—used to silence users. Facebook groups have been created specifically for the purpose of reporting accounts, and in Vietnam government supporters have organized reporting sprees against political activists. Feminist activists from India recently faced a focused reporting attack specifically aimed at silencing their voices on the social media giant—a problem compounded by Facebook’s continued failure to provide culturally competent support staff. 

Here are two more examples of the repercussions of using real names on Facebook.

• Journalist set on fire in India after Facebook post making allegations against local politician.
• Azerbaijani Journalist beaten to death over Facebook status update. 

3) Will insiders and whistleblowers come to a fully transparent media organisation?

Consider this scenario: A person called Sandy Po is a journalist who has access to great information owing to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The site insists that they publish it under his name. Sandy weighs the risks and walks away. How has the cause of transparency been served?

Transparency of the author is not an end goal. It is a means. The end goal of a great media organisation should be to provide relevant information to society that was previously not available. Sometimes, transparency helps it move faster towards the goal. Sometimes, it doesn’t. We need to use our judgment on a case-to-case basis.

4) Anonymous sources are okay, but anonymous opinions are not okay?

I am going to really stretch the analogy here. When reporters work on a story, it’s common for them to use anonymous sources (for example, Mark Felt and Deep Throat). If original reporting can rely on anonymous sources, why can’t original opinion pieces rely on pseudonyms?

5) What is in a name?

My name can be anything it wants to be. Suppose, my real name is Donald Duck and my pseudonym is Mickey Mouse. What difference does it make to have a real name versus a pseudonym? The pseudonym’s track record is there for people to see anyway. All they have to do to understand my biases, writing history and previous track record is click to on the author name.

On the other hand, could an analysis of a name lead to reading too much into the messenger instead of the message. For example, one of the most despicable comments on my previous article on The New York Times attacked writers on the basis of their surnames. Here is the comment:

Names of Authors: Falerio, Khan, Harris.
That explains it all.

What additional context does a real name of the author give to the reader?

6) No one-size-fits-all policy

Ultimately, there is no one size that fits all towards building a great media platform. You have organisations like The New York Times that require a byline from the author. On the other hand, you have The Economist where there is no byline and the authors are anonymous. You also have Zero Hedge, a path-breaking blog covering the financial industry that publicised controversial flash trading practices by Wall Street. Zero Hedge’s writing is done under the name of Tyler Durden, the lead character in the movie Fight Club.

One needs to use judgment to evaluate when transparency or anonymity or pseudo-anonymity of a writer achieves the goal of a best in class news organisation. Having a singular, monolithic view on transparency of an author may itself defeat the larger purpose of shedding light on society.

Please do read Abhinandan Sekhri’s counterview.

The voting and comments for this article are only open to our subscribers. Subscribe now to participate.

Please read both articles before voting.