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.
Op Ed: 'By-Line' ReflectsSalem-News.com