You Can Be Anonymous and Credible

Shel Holtz takes Ragan Communications to task for launching an anonymous blog about government relations. He argues that anonymous bloggers, with a very few exceptions, have no credibility.

Once again, the argument rages about whether a blog is an appropriate format for a particular kind of writing. My answer continues to be that the writing can shine through if it's well done. I won't dismiss the anonymous government relations blogger just because they're anonymous. But I probably won't cut them any slack either. The benefit of the doubt is reserved for those people who put their names behind their work.

For writers, their credibility is their currency. Without it, what have they got?

Two extremely credible exceptions to Shel's concern came to mind today. They're not bloggers, but are writers whose words I trust completely: Stanley Bing whose columns and books on the world of business shine a bright light on the perils of corporate life; and Cecil Adams, who has been a syndicated authority on selected subjects for decades. And they have maintained what level of anonymity is possible in today's connected world.

Neither of these writers would have more authority if they were referred to as CBS executive Gil Schwartz or Cecil Adams' "editor" Ed Zotti. Their credibility came from their clear, engaging writing.

Comments

[Shel Holtz]

I don't know Cecil, Eric, but I beg to differ on Stanley Bing. His credibility came in part from the Fortune Magazine label; if Fortune says he's an executive, we can believe it. (Same with the guy who was writing the anonymous end-piece column in the early iterations of Business 2.0, "A Spy in the House of Work"). The problem with the blog is that many people who stumble on it won't associate it with Ragan, and as much as I like Ragan, many people out there won't know who they are (as opposed to Fortune, which everybody knows). You'll get no arguments from me about good writing, but credentials count for something, particularly when subject matter expertise is the focus of the column.

[Eric Eggertson]

I guess my point is that credibility can be earned by an anonymous writer. However, I think anyone who actually thinks they're going to be able to stay anonymous in a world with Goodle and Yahoo is dreaming. All it takes is one leak of info, and you're cover is blown permanently, so why bother?

[Dana Voss]

I agree with Shel. In my opinion anonymous bloggers have little to no credibility. Just because you’re a good writer does not mean the content is credible. I’m sure there are some students that have better writing skills than many PR practitioners. However, these students certainly don't have the knowledge or professional experience that the PR practitioners do. My point is: Clear, concise writing doesn’t necessarily immediately deserve credibility.
Likewise, I feel that there shouldn’t be any reason for anonymous bloggers. If the blogger’s comment is accurate and truthful then they should stand behind it and attach their name to it.
An example that comes to my mind is the famous anonymous source Deep Throat that gave attention and credibility to confidential sources. In this case, ultimately the Washington Post was responsible for the accuracy and credibility of the source used. For this very reason some of the more reputable publications such as Fortune Magazine can get away with publishing anonymous comments because readers know that the publication is responsible for the credibility of what is published. In my opinion blogging hasn’t yet had time to establish this sort of credibily to be able to deliver anonymous sources that readers trust.