In an unrelated development, a cyber spat ignited a fortnight ago between pro-Mukhriz Mahathir and pro-Khairy Jamaluddin factions brought about a robust debate regarding blogging ethics and etiquette. The Umno vs Umno skirmish* yielded some points on code of conduct applicable to the current Eli episode.
Ahirudin Attan in his Rocky's Bru posting Ground rules for blogging (April 30) says: “If I were to expose the ID of blogger Hard T and who he works for, he would most likely lose his job next week. His employer might sue him and the cops would want to interview him over some pictures he posted recently will know where to find him.???
Rocky, who is All-Blogs pro-tem president, writes that anonymity gives someone “the freedom to comment on issues without having to worry about being sued or jeopardizing the positions of people close to him or his sources???.**
I would have to disagree with Rocky on this. I do not believe one's anonymity should make someone think he can write irresponsibly, to the point of publishing material that makes him liable to defamation.
However, I do support Rocky's declaration that he would “continue to encourage Anon. Bloggers to unmask and proudly blog as themselves???.
Hold writers accountable
Sakmongkol (Datuk Ariff Sabri) crossed swords with Rocky, arguing that even if the identity of the source is to be protected, the identity of the writer need not necessarily be guarded.
'Sakmongkol answers Rocky-2': “There are, of course, narrow circumstances in which anonymity is not only justifiable but crucial — namely when whistle-blowing reliable sources risk their jobs or even careers to divulge damaging information that the Government wants to hide — but that obviously isn't how anonymity is being used in the vast majority of cases by beltway cyber-journalists, such as those documented above???.
Ariff says the cloak of secrecy is often misused and abused, and asserts, “That's what anonymity does — it allows dubious or even false claims to be spouted with impunity and without any accountability.???
Talking about anonymity as “a risky and questionable practice for cyber-journalists???, Ariff posited “if the use of anonymity is tenuous for sources, it is even more for the reporters themselves???.
Ariff is correct in that the crutch of anonymity corrupts. “This use of anonymity harms the role of bloggers and diminishes the value of the confidentiality given to those who are real whistleblowers — people who actually risk their jobs and jail for what they may believe is a higher cause.???
Not only that, but anonymity has encouraged vile remarks from commentators who think they can get away with murder (but less figuratively, let's just say get away with character assassination). Recently, Ariff came in for a plethora of low blows, ranging from “Sakmongkol is a sick bastard with lousy english n no integrity??? to being labelled 'senduk' and 'bingai'.
'Lousy English' is patently a false accusation as any reader can, at a glance, see that Sakmongkol writes darn good English. The 'no integrity' charge was not substantiated by his anonymous accuser. As for the cheap shots, what does one expect from a foul-mouthed commentator whose blog is named 'Pure Shiite' and replete with pictures of grimacing monkeys.
Sakmongkol who is forthright about his real identity Ariff Sabri, i.e. a former Umno state assemblyman for Pulau Manis, Pekan, commands more credibility. However, the anonymous commentators assume multiple pseudonyms and fake personas and thus don't play by Queensbury rules.
“So when we have situations where "we accuse" authors like the Voices and Bigdogs of this world, go out of their way to avoid using their own names , there is often a good suspicion why: They apparently don't look forward to questions about why and how exactly they wrote what they wrote. Put it simply: they just publish and be dammed,??? writes Ariff.
“What is it that confers on them this sense of invincibility? It is this concept known as anonymity that gives them free rein as judge and jury, exempt from cross-examination. This 'trust me' practice goes against the very grain of the tradition of natural justice in allowing the aggrieved the right to face his accusers.???
Even though Ariff was directing his remarks at the anti-KJ group [read Chronology endnote for backgrounder], they could just as well apply to the bloggers and commentators who have been running down Eli Wong.
Dog-eat-dog world
A Voice's response Common Sense and Common Courtesy: Ground Rule for Blogging to his outing in the Sakmongkol blog is a thoughtful reflection on the undercurrents of blogosphere. I recommend it be read in its entirety although I shall excerpt below some of the more pertinent content.
A Voice says: “I may not believe there should be any hard and fast code of conduct or ethics in blogging but there [are] already many unstated ground rule[s] in blogging???.
He writes: “BUM 2009 is coming, the new Minister of Information, Dato Dr Rais Yatim has stretched his hand to bloggers, former Minister for Internal Security, Dato Syed Hamid call[ed] for a Code of Ethics for Bloggers, and recent skirmiches amongst bloggers.???
“ … When Syed Hamid [last year] expressed the need for Code of Ethics, I thought it was not a smart idea. In fact, I expressed the same comment nationally in a RTM Radio interview. It is simply because inch by inch, it will lead towards curtailing freedom of speech and expression. What we have achieved in this last few years will be reversed???.
A Voice makes the sensible formulations: “Something one fail[s] to realise is that the blogosphere actually has its own way of dealing with those wayward bloggers???.
“You write crap, you lose your credibility and people just stop visiting???, “You get too personal in your critics and readers just shy away.???, “If you can't handle comments, moderate???, “And if bloggers can't handle being dished [sic] back, after you've [dissed] someone, I suggest you close your commentary box and fade away or immediately quit blogging???.
If you need to be critical, shoot the message not the messenger, he further advises.
On his own experience for being taken to task for his criticisms of Rashid Yusof, A Voice said that “it seemed as though Rashid was a subject matter that no one can question or discuss??? and in doing so, he became the target of counter-attack from Rashid's “many friends amongst bloggers and journalists???.
Similarly, the Mahathir clan who are influential in blogosphere has an even more co-ordinated network of alert attack dogs they sic on their critics. Unlike the world of tame and domesticated mainstream media (MSM), the www of 'world wide web' may be more aptly be 'wild, wild web' where the law of the jungle holds sway.
Eli: Law or blog order?
Elizabeth Wong is not being allowed to put the voyeurism behind her. Her ordeal was resuscitated during the Bukit Gantang by-election when cartoon pamphlets were circulated in the constituency. Now this, the anticipated final strike (it was expected ultimately that photos of this nature would surface) which is very hurtful.
Granted that Eli is a politician but these beyond-limit photos have breached even a public figure's lesser right to privacy, whatever the pontificating moral police may have to say in self-justification. And the persistent 'b*tch'-calling of her littering cyberspace is disrespectful not only to Eli alone but of women in general. Taking this noxious tack is unacceptable.
Compared to Sakmongkol who opened a can of worms, Eli's case is an unparalleled hornet's nest. Rocky is acquainted with the blogger who is culprit, as are other blogging comrades. As a first step, blogosphere should apply peer pressure on him to remove the photo link at once.
Secondly, Netizens need not dignify the offensive posting with a visit.
Thirdly, the regular following that this blogger has, and if they object to his antics, should abandon his cyber premises forthwith. I know of another vicious blog where decent readers have shied away, leaving only a small handful of birds of a feather chattering amongst themselves.
Beyond Step 3 are other more contentious checks and remedies that ought to be trashed out by bloggers. It is the stakeholders who should come to a consensus. However, blogosphere should also be wary of the authorities taking advantage of the situation to impose stifling regulations and penalties on the Net as they have done with Malaysia's muzzled MSM.
The writer is co-chair of Bloggers' Universe Malaysia (BUM 2009) and moderating the forum 'Bagaimanakah Media Baru boleh menggalakkan pemikiran kritis masyarakat' to be held on May 16.
CHRONOLOGY
* The cyber skirmish started when Big Dog (Zakhir Mohamed) — whose blog is a virtual shrine to the Mahathir family — lambasted Rashid Yusof, a former journalist attached to NSTP Group during the 1980s and 1990s. Rashid was in the running for a job as Press Secretary to Muhyiddin Yassin in the deputy prime minister's office.
April 24: Big Dog, in his posting headlined ‘Level Four’ legacy lives on in DPM’s office had described Rashid as a “strategic adviser and close confidante??? of Khairy. Big Dog alleged that Rashid was quoted to have said “I will do my level best to recucicate [sic] KJ back into Najib’s favour, through Muhyiddin’s office???. (Rashid has since denied he ever made any such statement).
Insisting that “blogs are playing a more prominent role in shaping the Internet savvy minds???, Big Dog contended that “Being associated with anything remotely ‘Level Four’ is something that should be a taboo in Dato’ Seri Najib’s administration???. He also reiterated the Mahathirist line that Khairy is guilty of, to use a euphemism, money politics.
In his own posting on the same day, 'A Voice' — an anonymous blogger whose identity is nonetheless an open secret in blogging circles — expressed his reservations if Rashid should be appointed. A Voice opined that “politically (Rashid) is tainted for his involvement in Khairy Jamaluddin's campaign???.
A Voice wrote: “How are we bloggers to defend and support Muhyiddin in his fight to reform the party and in particular to clean it of money politics, if such a person [as Rashid] forms an important part of his team???? A Voice charged that “By his association with Khairy, Rashid could be a potential security issue and not to mention, a potential source of information leak???.
April 25: Responding to Big Dog and A Voice, Sakmongkol who had staunchly backed Khairy during the Umno Youth election, posted 'In Defense of Rashid Yusof'. Sakmongkol noted how “it seems the animosity towards supporters of KJ is not over. It continues to be dished out to those associated with him. Such action gives a new meaning to the term guilty by association???.
Sakmongkol followed this up with 'The Media Goodfellas and other Goombahs'.
April 26: Sakmongkol's 'Painted Jezebels in the Media' and his earlier goodfellas-and-goombahs postings both alluded to seasoned journalist Joceline Tan of The Star, alleging a professional rivalry between Tan and Rashid.
April 27: In 'Under caption contest!', Sakmongkol reproduced a photograph which had appeared in a pro-Khairy website. The snapshot showed A Voice and Big Dog flanking Dr Mahathir Mohamed — a priceless gem in which the ex-premier defied his age, looking spry and spruce while Big Dog wears a goofy expression as if thrilled to death to be pictured with his idol. Nonetheless, Sakmongkol, inadvertently or not, revealed A Voice's identity to online readers.
Sakmongkol took down 'Under caption contest!' on May 2.
April 30: A Voice made his dissatisfaction felt in a posting Common Sense and Common Courtesy: Ground Rule for Blogging where he claimed Sakmongkol had not sought his permission prior to publishing the photograph, and that he would have preferred to remain anonymous.
Rocky immediately publicised A Voice's complaint; Rocky's posting generated 96 comments and started a renewed debate on the merits and demerits of anonymity.
For a good comment defending anonymity, read Donplaypuks at Comment No.203 here.
** “I have asked A Voice many times to shed his anonymity and to blog as himself (I asked every Anon Blogger to do that, anyway). Each time, he would say "it's not time yet". Anonymity gives someone like A Voice the freedom to comment on issues without having to worry about being sued or jeopardizing the positions of people close to him or his sources.??? (Rocky Bru, 'Ground rules for blogging')