Ted,

I have spoken of the gap rather than assign the positions! We can both agree on one thing: neither of us want to be the creationist. As you rightly say, nothing earth shattering to it. And neither you nor I are annoyed about any of it. Again, thanks for hosting the exchange but I do feel Noel should have made his case on TPQ.

I hope I’m not the creationist in this discussion, but I will leave that for you to decide! I agree that we are not going to see eye-to-eye about this, and I agree that this is not exactly earth-shattering stuff.

That’s as clear as mud. Mr McIntyre’s response appears to be, “can you all stop asking difficult questions I don’t want to answer.”

Thank you for maintaining faith in the right of reply principle. I guess it is only proper and courteous that I acknowledge your questions, even if we are now at the point of understanding each other in the way that creationists and evolutionists do: a palpable absence of shared ground.

As I have not at any time commented one way or the other on the status of Paul Campbell, I am not going to be of much assistance to you in your continued deep interest in a ‘kerfluffle’. Kev, has shrewdly addressed the points raised in your question in such a fashion as to make additional substantial comment superfluous.

Again, without prejudice, should editors who allow writers to use a pseudonym inform their readers that the by-line is such? Where a pseudonym is used because of safety or employment issues, indications that a pseudonym has been granted might defeat the purpose of its use. As we see in the resulting ‘kerfuffle’ being made over Paul Campbell, some who seek to trace the author would no doubt pose a risk to his safety and employment; what has yet to be addressed is the substance in Campbell’s piece which dealt with such intimidation. I shouldn’t need to point out the problems the issuance of threatening legal letters would bring to an individual not in a position to deal with such threats. And from the outset of this dispute in May of last year the Irish News has been determined to fire threatening volleys from censor lawyers. This is a risk publishers, rather than their contributors, should take on the onus of confronting. One reason TPQ is labelled ‘confrontationist’ I guess.

The Irish News Editor has, and uses, the discretion over which letters to publish anonymously. This fact is not in dispute. I agree with you it is reasonable for it to do so. I presume where an editor allows anonymity for those who feel they might face intimidation as a result of what they write, it would also be proper. Perhaps you disagree.

As stated previously, I would not use a pseudonym for my own writing. I disagree with their use. But in a pluralist world we often permit what we disagree with. Ultimately, as suggested by Kev, and your own interest notwithstanding, I tend to view the Paul Campbell issue as an attempt to deflect the gaze away from the elephant in the room.

By this point the issue of by-lines is more than exhausted and if mutual understanding is not achieved by now it never will be as there’s only so many ways to say the same thing; I don’t know how we could be any clearer.

Gray, thanks for the comment. I agree with the thrust of your comment about the lack of explanation of the need for anonymity, though I don’t think that a bad editorial decision—if that’s what this was—is really a reason to view TPQ with any particular skepticism.

Kev, thanks for the comment. Anthony McIntyre’s post says nothing about the questions I’ve asked. He is writing about the Irish News and its choices, not his own editorial policies. I do think he has made a factual mistake about the Irish News’s policies. It appears that the paper does not permit anonymous letters, but that it makes an exception for sex abuse victims. That seems a reasonable policy to me, and I think McIntyre is wrong to claim that publication of an anonymous letter from a sex abuse victim means that Noel Doran is hypocritical when he criticizes the “Paul Campbell” piece. I also think it’s borderline silly to compare anonymous comments on the sports page to anonymous opinion pieces. That’s just common sense to me.

The “Paul Campbell” debate may or may not be tedious, but to be honest it’s the only reason I’ve had an interest in this last bit of Belfast Project drama. So I’m afraid you’ll have to bear with me!

Thanks again for providing space on your blog for this topic again. I’ve added you to my Feedly reads specifically for your coverage on this. Though I have to admit your usual content is quite specialist and while an insight into topic areas I’m barely aware of sadly I am taxed by a standard of writing at least two education levels beyond my reading level.

Whilst I’ve mainly followed this saga on Anthony’s and other sites I think I can keep myself within the discourse levels expected from your more refined and genteel comments area. Maybe it’ll become a civilising influence on the ragamuffins and ne’er-do-wells that comment on the Pensive Quill but alas I expect when the British jackboot failed to civilise these croppies a robustly policed comments zone might not be up to the job either.

However, I’m rambling as is my wont and before even the smallest of medicinal tinctures, so I will address a point or two that your three comments immediately brought to mind.

Did we read the same article from Dr McIntyre? (I call him Dr because whilst he says he doesn’t like it of course he does, what man doesn’t like his place on a pedestal)

You have made three comments on the topic of pseudonymous comment. When I read the good Dr’s article all these points not only seemed to have been addressed but to have been the central thrust of the piece.

Of course it would be idiotic to compare the use of a pseudonym by an author or commenter on a blog with the quite correct granting of anonymity to letter writers to a newspaper who have been the victim of sexual abuse. There is perhaps a small argument to be had over why victims of that crime are granted anonymity when making their points in public and not other victims, but that is a pointless conversation for another day on another blog.

The Dr’s prescription to Mr Doran (if I knew his titles I would apply them) was that when he criticised the use of a pseudonym he should examine his own house and provided 3 examples where Mr Doran permits pseudonyms within his own publication.

You have latched on to the sole example that few would disagree is a legitimate instance of providing anonymity and in no way comparable to the use of pseudonyms by a blog author or commentators.

However, you failed to note the two further examples cited:

the ubiquitous ‘staff reporter’ that appears not only within the Irish News but on it’s esteemed front page as the byline for lead stories which also use, quite legitimately, unnamed sources.
the anonymous comment that is permitted weekly and in large amounts within the Irish News sports pages. Some may say sport is not news, and I’d agree – it is much, much more important than news.

However, the anonymous comment on the Irish News sports page is often controversial, highly critical and sometimes abusive (though they seem to tone it down a little for the benefit of more fragile readers).

The ‘staff reporter’ with their ‘sources’ is also a pseudonymous writing with unidentifiable and unverifiable content. Of course any person of sound mind would accept that Mr Doran on occasion would by necessity need to protect both his reporters and/or their sources by not identifying them. I would not seek to force Mr Doran to identify his ‘staff reporter’ or ‘sources’ I trust his judgement on these matters will be to protect one, other or both and not based on anything untoward. I would never think to question those judgements by raising them in a conspiratorial manner.

The main difference between the Dr and the Mr is that one seems to assign an individual moniker to each author, whilst the other permits many to use the anonymity of a single ‘staff reporter’ byline.

To me it seems permitting a pseudonym to a blog author would be well within the practices of most newspapers and indeed by assigning what I assume is a unique name Dr McIntyre is actually operating at an arguably higher level of integrity than the print media in ensuring each pseudonymous entry is seemingly attributable to a single individual .

Now returning to pseudonymous comment, that has been part of the internet since it’s birth. Dr McIntyre has pointed out quite rightly that whilst The Irish News may having a reasonably strong position against it on readers letters, with exceptions, this does not apply to the entire publication.

Being a man of simple mind and simple pleasures and a regular reader of the Irish News the sports page is my first port of call. It has long been the habit of the sports section to allow ridiculous, controversial, rude or borderline abusive comment to be carried within it’s columns. They’ve carried a rather irate contribution from myself after a disappointing managerial situation within a team I follow. They did not seek to verify my identity and permitted highly critical comment without any identity check under a clearly fake name. This is their norm not the exception.

All these points seemed to be clearly made in the blog you have just carried and then commented on three times.

The point seems very clear, that when Mr Doran is complaining about pseudonymous content he is perhaps unwittingly practicing hypocrisy. His paper is ‘guilty’ of the same actions he complains of on a much more regular basis to a much wider audience than Mr McIntyre.

However, the point I’d like to raise high is that what Mr Doran doesn’t do is address the very substantial criticisms raised against him and his publication.

He has brought what should be a discussion on serious allegations that his publication may have contributed to a major and perhaps irreparable impact on academic research and oral history gathering in conflict situations into an exercise in pedantics and distraction.

There are very important and far reaching elements of this story.The by-line Paul Campbell is not one of them. Its a distraction and to be honest a tedious one.

I’ve expended far too much of my vocabulary and time on this, I’ve little and like to keep it for more interesting and important matters so this will be my last comment on this quite ludicrous game of Where’s Waldo.

I’m Waldo and so’s my wife.

Any chance Mr Doran will deign to address the substance that has been put to him rather than this dog chasing a bluebottle sideshow which was interesting for a while, but quickly becomes slightly annoying?

Regards,

Kev.