September 2, 2010
Outpost
UPDATED: Mudflats anonymous no more
| Mar 27, 2009UPDATED: State Rep. Mike Doogan has revealed in his email newsletter the woman behind the hugely popular, Sarah Palin-bashing blog, Mudflats (themudflats.net). And she doesn't like it!
Doogan writes: "The identity of the person who writes the liberal Democratic Mudflats blog has been secret since the blog began, protected by the Anchorage Daily News, among others. My own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name. So I was interested to learn that the woman who writes the blog is Anchorage resident Jeanne Devon."
In an interview with Alaska Dispatch, Doogan said that from his point of view, as soon as she began to influence public policy she gave up her right to remain anonymous. "If this was a group of people sitting around the living room, relentlessly attacking public figures, that would be one thing. But she's been doing that on the Internet--which goes everywhere--for the better part of the year, and she's allowed to do that anonomously? Where's the benefit of that to our state or our country?"
Devon, who says her name is actually Jeanne Chilton,(who went by Jeanne Chilton Devon in a 2007 letter to the Anchorage Daily News) writes a long piece today about why she stayed anonymous and takes shots at Doogan for unmasking her.
Chilton writes on Mudflats:
So, now, if you look on the About page, you'll get to see my real name (which Rep. Doogan almost got right). And you also get to learn that the rules of the game are whatever Rep. Doogan's "theory of public process" say they should be. How does everyone feel about that?
And here's another irony. Rep. Doogan thinks he has exposed me, but in reality he has done nothing but expose himself.
And with that, Mudflatters, I need to take a little time off to assess things, and take stock of how life will be changing for me and my family."
And here is more from Chilton on her blog about Doogan's surprise move today:
But sometimes politicians don't like people who express their opinions, especially when the opinion is less than flattering, and especially when it's their own words that come back to bite them. Mudflatters may recall back in December when Rep. Mike Doogan really got under my skin. I had posted previously about Mr. Doogan by posting his reaction to the Palin nomination, promoting his appearance on a local radio show, and talking about the certainty of his reelection. But I don't always agree with him. The post where I took him to task was entitled "Are You People Nuts? Lessons in Email Etiquette."
*****
If I were to appear, as many of you have, at a political rally and I were to hold up a sign that expressed my opinion, I don't have to sign my name on the bottom. And if someone wants to come online and read my diary, they are free to do so. And if they want to disagree, that's OK too.
It says in my "About" page that I choose to remain anonymous. I didn't tell anyone why. I might be a state employee. I might not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I might alienate my best friend. Maybe I don't feel like having a brick thrown through my window. My spouse might work for the Palin administration. Maybe I'd just rather people not know where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be true. None of my readers, nor Mike Doogan had any idea what my personal circumstances might be. But that didn't seem to matter.
What appears to matter to Rep. Doogan is that either 1) he feels that if he "outs" me, he'll change what I have to say, or keep me from saying anything. 2) he gets to play mystery detective (like in his books) and believes people will think he's really cool for figuring it out, or 3) he feels like getting revenge. He knows I want to remain anonymous, so he's going to take it away. In any of those three scenarios, he didn't think it was important to get the bigger picture.
Doogan did admit that her post about him got him curious about who she was, but denied that revealing her name had anything to do with revenge. "I just don't see how the entirely liberal and mostly Outside audience of hers is going to have some effect on what I do," he said. "And I don't consider revealing one of the state's leading political activists an act of revenge."
The issue of anonymity--particularly that of Mudflats'--was brought up last night at a forum about blogging sponsored by the Alaska Press Club, which the Alaska Dispatch sat on. Shannyn Moore, who has her own blog and also writes for The Huffington Post, and who is a friend of Chilton, vigorously defended Mudflats' right to anonymity. It was pointed out to her by Dispatch editor Amanda Coyne, however, that if Chilton was a strident Republican who was attacking a politician who Moore supported, Moore would probably do everything she could to reveal that person's identity.
The interesting thing about today's turn of events is that Doogan, a former newspaper columnist, is a Democrat. And that isn't lost on Moore and others.
"Frankly, I would expect this from (Palin flacks) Meg Stapeton or Bill McCallister, but not someone who claims to be a progressive," Moore writes on her blog, Shannyn Moore: Just a Girl From Homer.
Discuss
Member Comments
Ease up on Mike. I'll give you two reasons most mainstream reporters attach real names to their stories. Credibility and accountability. Some bloggers want the former without the latter, then splutter when they are called on it.
--Brian O'D
--Brian O'D
-
- +0
-
-
maybe doogone outed devon because she never wrote about what a poor job doogone and the democrats are doing down in juneau and maybe doogone is grumpy because begich---no one is reporting about him and possibly doogan exposed her because he thought she was a paid blogger by team sarah because she's not hurting sarah one bit and a one sided blog doesn't help alaska
-
- +0
-
-
In some cases its considered liable to reveal private information about someone if it is likely to cause harm, and if there is no compelling public interest to do so, even if its true. Revealing the info, and re-printing it is malicious, in my opinion.
Whether this is liable, or a civil rights violation, unethical or just plain bad manners, it should be recognized as wrong.
You don't lose privacy if your writing is so GOOD it becomes Popular !
Oh, like we should protect BAD writing, but if too many people -like- it you lose your privacy ! That's BS!
Another thing to ponder is this. If you're a public official, why would you be worried about relentless daily criticism? If the criticism is false, its easy to refute, If its true then you should reform, and do better.
Silencing critics is the cheap easy and un-American way to go about it.
During the McCarthy hearings a Young Ronald Reagan said that democracy can extend free speech, even to communists, the right ideas will win.
Whether this is liable, or a civil rights violation, unethical or just plain bad manners, it should be recognized as wrong.
You don't lose privacy if your writing is so GOOD it becomes Popular !
Oh, like we should protect BAD writing, but if too many people -like- it you lose your privacy ! That's BS!
Another thing to ponder is this. If you're a public official, why would you be worried about relentless daily criticism? If the criticism is false, its easy to refute, If its true then you should reform, and do better.
Silencing critics is the cheap easy and un-American way to go about it.
During the McCarthy hearings a Young Ronald Reagan said that democracy can extend free speech, even to communists, the right ideas will win.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda,
If there was a good anonymous conservative blog out there, I would read it. Problem is, conservatives are way behind in the world of communication compared to progressives. Look at what is happening currently in the Palin administration. Blackberrys are everywhere but no one seems to know what is going on.
Although I don't agree 100% with Mudflats all the time, I am a regular reader and supporter. I believe it has a right to maintain anonymity if it so chooses. Mudflats clearly has a huge loyal following and I agree with others who suspect there's an abundance of jealousy in the online world of news reporting/blogging. I am amazed at the cohesiveness of the progressive bloggers in this community, something to be respected and admired.
I do recall as well Sheila Toomey was the anonymous "Ear" for many years. I would think she of all people would understand anonymity. I guess not.
It seems as well that the ADN gets to determine what is private and what is not. Outing an anonymous private citizen blogger is acceptable, but thoroughly reporting the events leading up to the birth of Trig last April was deemed a "private matter," although Palin herself put the information out for public consumption. Her actions were egregious, and posed a potential public health nightmare if others were to follow in her footsteps.
I'm an experienced L&D nurse and am quite comfortable labeling Palin's actions last April as reckless endangerment. But that's not newsworthy. Outing a hard-working and well-versed blogger who causes no harm to anyone is.
Shameful.
If there was a good anonymous conservative blog out there, I would read it. Problem is, conservatives are way behind in the world of communication compared to progressives. Look at what is happening currently in the Palin administration. Blackberrys are everywhere but no one seems to know what is going on.
Although I don't agree 100% with Mudflats all the time, I am a regular reader and supporter. I believe it has a right to maintain anonymity if it so chooses. Mudflats clearly has a huge loyal following and I agree with others who suspect there's an abundance of jealousy in the online world of news reporting/blogging. I am amazed at the cohesiveness of the progressive bloggers in this community, something to be respected and admired.
I do recall as well Sheila Toomey was the anonymous "Ear" for many years. I would think she of all people would understand anonymity. I guess not.
It seems as well that the ADN gets to determine what is private and what is not. Outing an anonymous private citizen blogger is acceptable, but thoroughly reporting the events leading up to the birth of Trig last April was deemed a "private matter," although Palin herself put the information out for public consumption. Her actions were egregious, and posed a potential public health nightmare if others were to follow in her footsteps.
I'm an experienced L&D nurse and am quite comfortable labeling Palin's actions last April as reckless endangerment. But that's not newsworthy. Outing a hard-working and well-versed blogger who causes no harm to anyone is.
Shameful.
-
- +0
-
-
I agree with LK Biegel -- Ear did the AK Dispatch no favors. I doubt that DooDoo has the balls to respond to the outrage he has created by his selfish, unethical actions. He ain't seen nothing yet, I believe ...
And it does appear that the Dispatch is a bit too gleeful over the Mudflats outing. Perhaps because it is so much better written, clever and overall more appealing to a way bigger audience?
Further, to say that the Dispatch is just "Amanda's blog" is quite disingenuous...
I guess now we regular bloggers must all worry about being outed by DooDoo or other self righteous a-holes? I hope someone finds his blog 'handle' and exposes it so he can see how it feels. Everyone has lost something because of Doogan's childish actions.
And it does appear that the Dispatch is a bit too gleeful over the Mudflats outing. Perhaps because it is so much better written, clever and overall more appealing to a way bigger audience?
Further, to say that the Dispatch is just "Amanda's blog" is quite disingenuous...
I guess now we regular bloggers must all worry about being outed by DooDoo or other self righteous a-holes? I hope someone finds his blog 'handle' and exposes it so he can see how it feels. Everyone has lost something because of Doogan's childish actions.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda, why are you shilling for Doogan?
Please consider that you just might be making yourself legally vulnerable by printing Mudflat's name. Yeah, I hear you whining, "but I'm just reporting the news."
Do the right thing AND cover your A$$ - redact the name.
Please consider that you just might be making yourself legally vulnerable by printing Mudflat's name. Yeah, I hear you whining, "but I'm just reporting the news."
Do the right thing AND cover your A$$ - redact the name.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda and Tony:
Sheila Toomey didn't do you guys any favors today. She sure made it look like you guys have been in cahoots over this all along.
Sheila Toomey didn't do you guys any favors today. She sure made it look like you guys have been in cahoots over this all along.
-
- +0
-
-
Response to VidOmnia (from yesterday @ 3:13 PM)
No, I wasn't OUTRAGED when Gov. Palin's e-mail was hacked, not like I was outraged when she encouraged with her pleased smiles the hateful shouts against Obama at her campaign rallies, and when she continued over and over again to insist he was "palling around with terrorists" when that was so obviously a lie.
And no, I wasn't outraged, because I didn't feel it was ethical or moral or legal for her to open up a private Yahoo! e-mail account to conduct state business in communicating with her state administrative staff.
However, I WAS disturbed by the e-mail hacking. Gov. Palin made herself more vulnerable to hacking by slipping out of the protection of the government e-mail system, but still, the hacking was illegal. The culprit has been caught, is in trial, and will be sentenced.
Somehow I feel that's not enough for Sarah Palin supporters, because they keep referring to the case even though it's near its judicial closure. I hope there isn't a vengeful Sarah Palin supporter out there who has the same mindset as Mike Doogan.
So, is it hypocritical that we progressives don't continue to rant about the e-mail hacking? If you look on any progressive blog, you'll see it's been discussed, and most don't like the idea of hacking -- but we have our issues about Gov. Palin, and you have your issues about the things she's said/done that aren't received well by anyone but your group.
Maybe never the twain shall meet.
No, I wasn't OUTRAGED when Gov. Palin's e-mail was hacked, not like I was outraged when she encouraged with her pleased smiles the hateful shouts against Obama at her campaign rallies, and when she continued over and over again to insist he was "palling around with terrorists" when that was so obviously a lie.
And no, I wasn't outraged, because I didn't feel it was ethical or moral or legal for her to open up a private Yahoo! e-mail account to conduct state business in communicating with her state administrative staff.
However, I WAS disturbed by the e-mail hacking. Gov. Palin made herself more vulnerable to hacking by slipping out of the protection of the government e-mail system, but still, the hacking was illegal. The culprit has been caught, is in trial, and will be sentenced.
Somehow I feel that's not enough for Sarah Palin supporters, because they keep referring to the case even though it's near its judicial closure. I hope there isn't a vengeful Sarah Palin supporter out there who has the same mindset as Mike Doogan.
So, is it hypocritical that we progressives don't continue to rant about the e-mail hacking? If you look on any progressive blog, you'll see it's been discussed, and most don't like the idea of hacking -- but we have our issues about Gov. Palin, and you have your issues about the things she's said/done that aren't received well by anyone but your group.
Maybe never the twain shall meet.
-
- +0
-
-
Sooo, freedom of speech only goes to anti-Palin people? Doogan will have to get with the program if he wants the right to say whatever he wants in the future.
-
- +0
-
-
So this comes from The Ear, that once-anonymous column in the ADN. Guess Sheila Toomey had to side with her friend Doogan, right?
MEDIA DRAMA ... Moaning and whining was heard in the land Friday after Rep. Mike Doogan, former Daily News editor and columnist, published the name of a popular local blogger in his constituent newsletter. The blog, The Mudflats, is one of the better efforts Ear has seen -- nicely written, delightfully opinionated and fun to read if one is of the liberal persuasion.
The woman who writes it, whose name is apparently Jeanne Chilton Devon, made a big deal about remaining anonymous. Doogan, whose name appeared at the top of every outrageous opinion he ever wrote, disapproved.
As Ear understands the debate, Mike says if you're going to mouth off publicly in an effort to influence the politics of thousands of people, you need to let people know who you are -- identity being an element in evaluating the worth of opinion.
As quoted on the Alaska Dispatch Web site (run by reporters Amanda Coyne and Tony Hopfinger) Chilton Devon says she didn't want her name known because, "I might be a state employee. I might not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I might alienate my best friend . . . Maybe I'd just rather people not know where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be true."
There's more. You can check out themudflats.net or Alaskadispatch.com for yourself.
So, now you want to know what once-anonymous (but not very) Ear says, right? The Divine Appendage says, Chilton Devon is a volunteer in the political blog business. If you can't take a punch, don't get in the ring.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda:
If an anonymous person publishes information or opinion, and then another person, without permission or consent, exposes the anonymous person's identity, have any of the anonymous person's rights been violated?
If an anonymous person publishes information or opinion, and then another person, without permission or consent, exposes the anonymous person's identity, have any of the anonymous person's rights been violated?
-
- +0
-
-
I really do not care if some one wants to be ”Anonymous " all I care is when they write something it is the TRUTH...which I find very little of whether they sign their name are don't sign ...but I feel that it is up to the person to decide which way they want to blog...I feel MF gave some good reasons why a person might not want to give their name...what I don't understand is why a few of the comments had to down Palin...this was not about Palin...a bit about me...not from Alaska (like a-lot of the people that comment on these blogs) ...am one of those Team Sarah members...but that doesn't stop me from seeing and feeling things that are unfair...so as an American I will stand for "Mine (and yours) FREEDOM OF SPEECH... Thank You
-
- +0
-
-
Why are people here bringing up Sarah Palin? She has exactly nothing to do with this, nor do any conservatives or Republicans. This is all a Democratic in-house affair.
Were any of you outraged when Governor Palin's e-mail was hacked and her private family photos and correspondence spread around? Or when Joe Wurzelbacher's private records were ransacked and leaked by Democratic officials?
If you didn't speak up then, then don't complain now. I'm a conservative Palin supporter and I was one of the very first people to speak up in support of Mudflats. You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.
Were any of you outraged when Governor Palin's e-mail was hacked and her private family photos and correspondence spread around? Or when Joe Wurzelbacher's private records were ransacked and leaked by Democratic officials?
If you didn't speak up then, then don't complain now. I'm a conservative Palin supporter and I was one of the very first people to speak up in support of Mudflats. You guys are a bunch of hypocrites.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda Coyne, in your example describing Les Gara or Hollis French or Beth Kerttula, don't you feel it's significant that no one has written the host of disparaging things about them that has been written by many Alaskan bloggers about Sarah Palin -- because there is very little there to write about them, unless one stoops to the puerile insults like those flung at Linda Kellen Biegel by the TeamSarah.org mob?
Conversely, isn't it possible the reason there are so many "disparaging things" written about Sarah Palin is because there is a mountain of gubernatorial waste product that Sarah Palin has produced?
I would be more reassured about your defense of rights if you'd stop defending the vile actions of someone who seems to be pandering to Sarah Palin's peculiar "executive experience"...
Conversely, isn't it possible the reason there are so many "disparaging things" written about Sarah Palin is because there is a mountain of gubernatorial waste product that Sarah Palin has produced?
I would be more reassured about your defense of rights if you'd stop defending the vile actions of someone who seems to be pandering to Sarah Palin's peculiar "executive experience"...
-
- +0
-
-
One more thing...Mudflats rightfully went after Mike Doogan when he mocked Alaskans For Truth in a similar manner that he mocked election integrity. That is one of the reasons he was obsessed with her ID.
Mike Doogan is the Joe Lieberman of the Alaska Democratic Party. Mudflats is an equal opportunist. I read Mudflats because she also holds DEMOCRATS accountable too.
Perhaps if Sarah Palin weren't such a pathological narcissist DSM IV, lying constantly to improve her political stakes at Alaskan's-both Democrats and Republicans-expense, she wouldn't have SO MANY PEOPLE calling her out on her BS. At least Frank Murkowski never claimed to be open and transparent. Throw in a blind rabid following-TeamSarah-and you have the makings of political fireworks.
If Sarah Palin ever did anything on behalf of Alaskans, I believe Mudflats would would give her props.
AND...Palin is a curious and impossibly viable presidential candidate for 2012-I think her presidential potential is a complete dangerous joke-but she is constantly promoted by cable MSM as a top contender for the GOP.
Hopefully Mudflats will morph into something even more powerful.
Mike Doogan is the Joe Lieberman of the Alaska Democratic Party. Mudflats is an equal opportunist. I read Mudflats because she also holds DEMOCRATS accountable too.
Perhaps if Sarah Palin weren't such a pathological narcissist DSM IV, lying constantly to improve her political stakes at Alaskan's-both Democrats and Republicans-expense, she wouldn't have SO MANY PEOPLE calling her out on her BS. At least Frank Murkowski never claimed to be open and transparent. Throw in a blind rabid following-TeamSarah-and you have the makings of political fireworks.
If Sarah Palin ever did anything on behalf of Alaskans, I believe Mudflats would would give her props.
AND...Palin is a curious and impossibly viable presidential candidate for 2012-I think her presidential potential is a complete dangerous joke-but she is constantly promoted by cable MSM as a top contender for the GOP.
Hopefully Mudflats will morph into something even more powerful.
-
- +0
-
-
there's now a facebook group set up to call out Mike Doogan for his shameful actions: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82564017994
-
- +0
-
-
@Beth - I guess someone needs to explain what the Alaska Dispatch is -- you say it's just Amanda's blog, but it seems like it's a lot more than that. And yes, I'd like it to be more than just another blog.
Perhaps it's a structural problem -- the site doesn't visually differentiate between what's an opinion piece and what's "news." If it's all opinion, that's fine, but it's not made clear, as the writing style used through much of the site is a "news" style. Is the above story a news piece or an opinion piece? Can it be both? And who wrote it (there's no byline)? A few tweaks and all would be clear.
And you bet I'm the judge -- for myself. I will either return to the site to gather more news and opinion and other information, or I won't. Whether I return will be determined by whether I believe information shared is trustworthy and the opinion delivered is thought-provoking and well-reasoned (again, based on my perceptions). If news and opinion are routinely conflated -- like Fox News does -- I won't be back. It could be there's a thriving market for that kind of "news" in Alaska. I just don't happen to be in that market.
I want to support a new media outlet that engages with the Alaskan community over matters of current events, thoughtful opinion, politics and more. That is what I want. Will Alaska Dispatch be that for me? I'm not sure yet. But I'm hopeful.
@librarygrape - Thank you for the clarification on what State resources appear to have been used in the dissemination of Doogan's message. It sure looks bad for him.
Now someone needs to convince me that what he's done is actually illegal. I'm still not sold on that score. But I'll keep reading.
Perhaps it's a structural problem -- the site doesn't visually differentiate between what's an opinion piece and what's "news." If it's all opinion, that's fine, but it's not made clear, as the writing style used through much of the site is a "news" style. Is the above story a news piece or an opinion piece? Can it be both? And who wrote it (there's no byline)? A few tweaks and all would be clear.
And you bet I'm the judge -- for myself. I will either return to the site to gather more news and opinion and other information, or I won't. Whether I return will be determined by whether I believe information shared is trustworthy and the opinion delivered is thought-provoking and well-reasoned (again, based on my perceptions). If news and opinion are routinely conflated -- like Fox News does -- I won't be back. It could be there's a thriving market for that kind of "news" in Alaska. I just don't happen to be in that market.
I want to support a new media outlet that engages with the Alaskan community over matters of current events, thoughtful opinion, politics and more. That is what I want. Will Alaska Dispatch be that for me? I'm not sure yet. But I'm hopeful.
@librarygrape - Thank you for the clarification on what State resources appear to have been used in the dissemination of Doogan's message. It sure looks bad for him.
Now someone needs to convince me that what he's done is actually illegal. I'm still not sold on that score. But I'll keep reading.
-
- +0
-
-
DrChill wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly. This blog is aiding Rep. Doogan's unethical actions.
Would you remove her name from the blog please.
Lets not make a bad situation worse.
Thank you
I agree wholeheartedly. This blog is aiding Rep. Doogan's unethical actions.
-
- +0
-
-
To jmprofitt, it's pretty clear that he did indeed abuse his office. He outed the blogger using his official periodic newsletter to his constituents (see it here http://akdemocrats.org/doogan/...juneau.htm ). Not to mention the fact that the newsletter is current up on the homepage of the Alaska Democratic Caucus. The newsletter shows up as coming from Rep. Doogan and the contact information shows his official state office address and phone numbers:
I agree with you that more needs to be done to assess the full extent of his actions and what violations of law, ethics and constitutional rights were involved.
CONTACT ME
Ph: (907) 465-4998
Or (800) 689-4998
Fax: (907) 465-4419
AK State Capitol Rm #112
Juneau, AK 99801
doogan@akdemocrats.org
I agree with you that more needs to be done to assess the full extent of his actions and what violations of law, ethics and constitutional rights were involved.
-
- +0
-
-
jmproffitt: This is Amanda's blog. She can write what she wants. Just like Mudflats can. What's your point? Are you saying the Dispatch has to become something else or should be held to a higher standard than other blogs? Who made you the judge?
-
- -1
-
-
Amanda,
I don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.
Mike Doogan, as an elected public official, in his official capacity, on the State's email and dime, did not have the right to "expose" Mudflats either. This is a rabid personal vendetta. Doogan has been after Mudflats' identity for a long time. Last year, with all that was going on, he spent his time checking to see if Les Gara was the author.
Mudflats' blog is her opinion. She isn't writing for the Alaska Dispatch or the Anchorage Daily News. Mudflats played a vital role in holding our politicians accountable. A role that is protected by the Supreme Court (see earlier post).
It is misguided to compare Mudflats right to privacy-she chose to remain anonymous...and Mike Doogan's "right to expose her".
Furthermore...Who wins?
Mike Doogan? No
Mudflats? No
Sarah Palin? No
There is no winner here.
And Amanda, I believe Mike Doogan potentially put himself in legal jeopardy. Your defense of him, along with Tony and Brendan, is elitest and shameful. You are on the wrong side of ethics, the law, history and common sense.
I don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.
Mike Doogan, as an elected public official, in his official capacity, on the State's email and dime, did not have the right to "expose" Mudflats either. This is a rabid personal vendetta. Doogan has been after Mudflats' identity for a long time. Last year, with all that was going on, he spent his time checking to see if Les Gara was the author.
Mudflats' blog is her opinion. She isn't writing for the Alaska Dispatch or the Anchorage Daily News. Mudflats played a vital role in holding our politicians accountable. A role that is protected by the Supreme Court (see earlier post).
It is misguided to compare Mudflats right to privacy-she chose to remain anonymous...and Mike Doogan's "right to expose her".
Furthermore...Who wins?
Mike Doogan? No
Mudflats? No
Sarah Palin? No
There is no winner here.
And Amanda, I believe Mike Doogan potentially put himself in legal jeopardy. Your defense of him, along with Tony and Brendan, is elitest and shameful. You are on the wrong side of ethics, the law, history and common sense.
-
- +0
-
-
One other point to everyone saying that Doogan used state resources to do this: We don't know that. Doogan shouldn't be accused of abuse of office. But that is an interesting question: Did he use State resources (e-mail systems, computers, phones, staff, etc.) to pursue this research? But at the moment, I certainly haven't seen evidence to support such an accusation.
Will the Alaska Dispatch reporters or stringers investigate this aspect of the story?
Will the Alaska Dispatch reporters or stringers investigate this aspect of the story?
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda, it's not all in the exclamation point. That's just the first sign that tipped me off something was amiss. And I ignored it on first reading.
As for biases, I haven't been presented the case of a right-wing blogger being "outed" by anyone of either party. I suspect that's happened in the past here in Alaska -- but I'm not aware of it. If I see it, I'll call that out as well. Whether it's D's doing this to D's, R's on R's or D's and R's mixing it up, it doesn't matter to me. Doogan's action -- and the Dispatch's tacit support -- is bad for everyone. Who is served well by this turn of events?
I tend to be a rabid centrist, and I dislike these party games in either direction. But I do respect the desire for privacy on the part of Mudflats or any other blogger that wants it. Truth is, I was aware of Mudflats' writing and was occasionally sent to her site via links from supporters and detractors alike.
But I never trusted Mudflats or really liked it -- mostly because the writer (or writers) weren't identified. I prefer people sign their names, take ownership of their comments and share their background so I can evaluate what they're saying. But that's my view. I have no desire to see the right to privacy and anonymity taken away from others that want it or may even legitimately need it.
I'm hopeful the Dispatch will discover an increasingly open and engaging tone as it builds a web community. And I hope that community is not divided along lines of who's "in" and who's "out" of some members-only media club.
As for biases, I haven't been presented the case of a right-wing blogger being "outed" by anyone of either party. I suspect that's happened in the past here in Alaska -- but I'm not aware of it. If I see it, I'll call that out as well. Whether it's D's doing this to D's, R's on R's or D's and R's mixing it up, it doesn't matter to me. Doogan's action -- and the Dispatch's tacit support -- is bad for everyone. Who is served well by this turn of events?
I tend to be a rabid centrist, and I dislike these party games in either direction. But I do respect the desire for privacy on the part of Mudflats or any other blogger that wants it. Truth is, I was aware of Mudflats' writing and was occasionally sent to her site via links from supporters and detractors alike.
But I never trusted Mudflats or really liked it -- mostly because the writer (or writers) weren't identified. I prefer people sign their names, take ownership of their comments and share their background so I can evaluate what they're saying. But that's my view. I have no desire to see the right to privacy and anonymity taken away from others that want it or may even legitimately need it.
I'm hopeful the Dispatch will discover an increasingly open and engaging tone as it builds a web community. And I hope that community is not divided along lines of who's "in" and who's "out" of some members-only media club.
-
- +0
-
-
"Rep. Mike Doogan has revealed in his email newsletter the woman behind the hugely popular, Sarah Palin-bashing blog, Mudflats"
I also take exception with the "Sarah Palin-bashing blog" description of MF. MF is full of information on ALL aspects of Alaska politics with a whole lot of Alaskan life tidbits thrown in. The Alaskan commenters try to be good hosts and share their views of Alaska life as well. The antics of our twit governor are there for all to see - and people can take what they want from from the bloggers "stories". It's just too bad for the twit governor that just about everything she does is foolish and selfish, designed to benefit no one but her and her disgusting followers who are thrilled to push their agenda down the throats of everyone. Don't blame the messenger - it's SP herself that perpetuates the horror of what she calls her political life. Actually, she perpetuates the horror of her family life as well since she's thrown that crap in everyone's face, too.
If any of our news media in Alaska was willing to tackle that tough stuff w/ real stories and follow up, then I would be happy to read those, too. But because the twit won't talk to any media or anyone who does not side with her, that will never happen with our Alaska media who is unwilling, or doesn't have the funds, to perform good ol' investigative journalism.
Gag me with a spoon if all I had to read about our creepy governor were HER stupid, and full of lies press releases that she wants to give out to the press. I can read those on the governor's state website, which looks like a personal blog to me and to many other Alaskans. I don't need a newspaper to regurgitate her own crap, I need good information and opposing views.
-
- +0
-
-
This is about a public official outing a private citizen based upon his personal vendetta and vindictive "theory" that people ought to be accountable for what they write. Tell that to Hamilton, Jefferson and Franklin! What about The Federalist Papers? The Founding Fathers often wrote anonymously. And for good reason-not unlike reasons Mudflats might have had.
The right to anonymity is critical to political discourse and plays an important role in checking our politicians. The following quote is from a US Supreme Court case upholding the right to such communications.
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
”Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
”Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
This is about what our great country was founded on: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It really boils down to this:
If you don't like homesexual sex-don't engage in it!
If you don't like abortions-don't have one!
If you don't like guns-don't own one!
If you don't like smoking-don't smoke!
If you don't like anonymous blogs or bloggers-don't read them!
The Supreme Court opinion is righteous and rooted in precedent and history. Mike Doogan and his ilk are simply and blatantly wrong and rooted in malice and envy.
Kelly Walters
The right to anonymity is critical to political discourse and plays an important role in checking our politicians. The following quote is from a US Supreme Court case upholding the right to such communications.
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
”Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
”Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
This is about what our great country was founded on: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It really boils down to this:
If you don't like homesexual sex-don't engage in it!
If you don't like abortions-don't have one!
If you don't like guns-don't own one!
If you don't like smoking-don't smoke!
If you don't like anonymous blogs or bloggers-don't read them!
The Supreme Court opinion is righteous and rooted in precedent and history. Mike Doogan and his ilk are simply and blatantly wrong and rooted in malice and envy.
Kelly Walters
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda - I highly respect the Dispatch because it's "tough" and tackles the stories our mainstream AK media wouldn't touch. But honestly, you are the last AK newspaper to do so. The Dispatch encourages stories from all views, including personal pieces written by the public, which I love. Your sweeping statement that we would all try to expose a blogger if they were blogging about someone we care about just isn't true and does not do justice to the blogging community.
I couldn't disagree more that Doogan was exercising his first amendment rights of free speech - not when he is denying another their right to free speech as well. Since I was the recipient of the snottiest emails from him that I have ever received from anyone, he has shown himself to be petty, vindictive and completely unaware of the changing world around him. Retire, Mike - and hope to hell that this doesn't blow up in your face.
I'm neither Democrat or Republican and I'm frankly sick to death of everyone trying to attach a label to people which would then denote their actions. Thanks to Sarah Palin and her Team Rats the political divisiveness in Alaska is at an all time intolerable level for me. I read conservative blogs, too and to be honest, I've not really paid attention to whether they are anonymous bloggers or not. It's the subject matter and the style of the blogger that attracts interest from me, not who the blogger is and what they have done or not done in their personal or professional life.
I couldn't disagree more that Doogan was exercising his first amendment rights of free speech - not when he is denying another their right to free speech as well. Since I was the recipient of the snottiest emails from him that I have ever received from anyone, he has shown himself to be petty, vindictive and completely unaware of the changing world around him. Retire, Mike - and hope to hell that this doesn't blow up in your face.
I'm neither Democrat or Republican and I'm frankly sick to death of everyone trying to attach a label to people which would then denote their actions. Thanks to Sarah Palin and her Team Rats the political divisiveness in Alaska is at an all time intolerable level for me. I read conservative blogs, too and to be honest, I've not really paid attention to whether they are anonymous bloggers or not. It's the subject matter and the style of the blogger that attracts interest from me, not who the blogger is and what they have done or not done in their personal or professional life.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda, one final thing, you seem to think that this sentence is somehow important: "If there was someone in this community who consistently wrote, night after night, disparaging things about Les Gara or Hollis French or Beth Kerttula and was so good at it that this person attracted a huge national audience by doing so, someone on the Left would cry afoul and do everything in their power to figure out who was behind it all."
Aren't you simply recycling the favorite line my kids like to use? "He did it so I can do it too." When assessing whether an action is appropriate, it is simply meaningless to say that other people would probably do the same thing too. Who cares? If other people might also engage in unethical or illegal conduct, does that really bear upon the issue of whether the action is legal or ethical? I think you owe everyone here a depth of analysis better than the arguments used by my 9-year-old.
Aren't you simply recycling the favorite line my kids like to use? "He did it so I can do it too." When assessing whether an action is appropriate, it is simply meaningless to say that other people would probably do the same thing too. Who cares? If other people might also engage in unethical or illegal conduct, does that really bear upon the issue of whether the action is legal or ethical? I think you owe everyone here a depth of analysis better than the arguments used by my 9-year-old.
-
- +0
-
-
Amanda,
If you are interested in informing the public with thorough journalism, maybe you should re-think this sentence: "I don't think anybody is saying that there should be a law against writing anonymously."
If you do some research into the issue, you'll find that using state action to punish someone for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech anonymously is UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society." -- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court http://supct.law.cornell.edu/s...86.ZO.html
Rep. Doogan used the power of his office, and the resources of the Alaska state government, to pursue a vendetta against this woman. I hope you'll consider writing an article on the serious legal implications of Rep. Doogan's actions.
If you are interested in informing the public with thorough journalism, maybe you should re-think this sentence: "I don't think anybody is saying that there should be a law against writing anonymously."
If you do some research into the issue, you'll find that using state action to punish someone for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech anonymously is UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society." -- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court http://supct.law.cornell.edu/s...86.ZO.html
Rep. Doogan used the power of his office, and the resources of the Alaska state government, to pursue a vendetta against this woman. I hope you'll consider writing an article on the serious legal implications of Rep. Doogan's actions.
-
- +0
-
-
I don't think anybody is saying that there should be a law against writing anonymously. And I totally agree with Mudflat's right to sign her name as she sees fit. But, using the same logic, I also believe that it was Doogan's right to expose her, as he saw fit. He was also exercising his right to free speech.
For the record: Tony and I had absolutely nothing to do with exposing Mudflats. I don't see where you all are seeing "glee"(could so much depend on one exclamation point?). Jeez. The Democratic party kept Doogan's "Extra Extra!" headline, and they certainly aren't joyful.
My last point, and I'll argue this until I'm blue: If there was someone in this community who consistently wrote, night after night, disparaging things about Les Gara or Hollis French or Beth Kerttula and was so good at it that this person attracted a huge national audience by doing so, someone on the Left would cry afoul and do everything in their power to figure out who was behind it all. I know that I would.
So there's bias for you all. I wouldn't stand for it from one side, but I did, for over a year, from the other.
I also don't believe that this is the end of Mudflats. She'll come back, and she'll be better than ever.
For the record: Tony and I had absolutely nothing to do with exposing Mudflats. I don't see where you all are seeing "glee"(could so much depend on one exclamation point?). Jeez. The Democratic party kept Doogan's "Extra Extra!" headline, and they certainly aren't joyful.
My last point, and I'll argue this until I'm blue: If there was someone in this community who consistently wrote, night after night, disparaging things about Les Gara or Hollis French or Beth Kerttula and was so good at it that this person attracted a huge national audience by doing so, someone on the Left would cry afoul and do everything in their power to figure out who was behind it all. I know that I would.
So there's bias for you all. I wouldn't stand for it from one side, but I did, for over a year, from the other.
I also don't believe that this is the end of Mudflats. She'll come back, and she'll be better than ever.
-
- +0
-
-
anyone else notice how the positively gleeful sounding writers here take great pains to highlight prominently the blogger's name? they really seem to be taking some serious joy at sticking it to someone in the "new media"
-
- +0
-
-
Thanks for the comments, Linda Kellen Biegel. I thought the unsigned story above sounded a bit gleeful, but then I thought that was just my impression. Now it sounds as though I'm not alone.
Is the apparent joy (note the use of the exclamation point in the first paragraph) at this turn of events brought on by righteousness, or just because it's a juicy story to cover?
Because I can agree it's a juicy story. But I don't get the gleeful angle. Everyone comes out worse for wear. Doogan wasn't well-served by his actions. Mudflats wasn't well-served. Who advanced their cause here?
Is the apparent joy (note the use of the exclamation point in the first paragraph) at this turn of events brought on by righteousness, or just because it's a juicy story to cover?
Because I can agree it's a juicy story. But I don't get the gleeful angle. Everyone comes out worse for wear. Doogan wasn't well-served by his actions. Mudflats wasn't well-served. Who advanced their cause here?
-
- +0
-
-
The biggest reason I find Doogan's actions despicable and his justifications pathetic are contained in this 1995 Supreme Court case, McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission. It involved a woman who wrote and distributed anonymous handbills opposing a tax levy. A school official complained, and she was fined. This case was found and cited by "basheert" on Shannyn Moore's site. In part it says:
” Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. ”
Also this from the same case, noted by "ratfishtim":
"Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. [n.5] Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
The case cites several examples from other court cases and history (Federalist Papers, anyone?) and adds:
"Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
The decision is at: http://straylight.law.cornell....86.ZO.html
It's sad--no, it's criminal--that Doogan, a former journalist and a government official, has ignored these First Amendment foundations. They protect not only someone like Alaska Muckraker, but all of us.
It's fantastic that thanks to Shannyn's blog, two anonymous writers like basheert and ratfishtim could educate us in the best spirit of public discourse.
” Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. ”
Also this from the same case, noted by "ratfishtim":
"Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. [n.5] Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
The case cites several examples from other court cases and history (Federalist Papers, anyone?) and adds:
"Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
The decision is at: http://straylight.law.cornell....86.ZO.html
It's sad--no, it's criminal--that Doogan, a former journalist and a government official, has ignored these First Amendment foundations. They protect not only someone like Alaska Muckraker, but all of us.
It's fantastic that thanks to Shannyn's blog, two anonymous writers like basheert and ratfishtim could educate us in the best spirit of public discourse.
-
- +0
-
-
I don't think I could respect Bob Poe more than I do right now. Of course, I'm not nearly as nice as he in my own blog post, especially when Amanda and Tony are obviously gloating and gleeful throughout this post. Hopfinger couldn't WAIT to get on Andrew Halcro's show yesterday and act as if justice has finally been served.
Gee, it's almost as if Tony or Amanda helped Doogan in his "investigation" and complete waste of State resources. Naw...that couldn't be...
I'd watch the unfolding quite carefully. It seems, in examining State statues, the Alaska Constitution, and Federal case law that Mr. Doogan may have gotten himself into quite a pickle. You see, the AK Constitution is the only one that specifically recognizes the "right to privacy."
Gee, it's almost as if Tony or Amanda helped Doogan in his "investigation" and complete waste of State resources. Naw...that couldn't be...
I'd watch the unfolding quite carefully. It seems, in examining State statues, the Alaska Constitution, and Federal case law that Mr. Doogan may have gotten himself into quite a pickle. You see, the AK Constitution is the only one that specifically recognizes the "right to privacy."
-
- +0
-
-
Hey thanks for the tip... librarygrape @ 03.28.2009 8:11 AM! I posted the e-mail info to the Ethics Committee and your message to the current dailykos diary!
Let's see where it goes from here!
Cheers!
Let's see where it goes from here!
Cheers!
-
- +0
-
-
This is just shameful. Outrageous and shameful. Here is the email I just sent to Doogan:
Dear Rep. Doogan,
While reading the news today, I was shocked to find out that you took it upon yourself to reveal the identity of the anonymous blogger behind Mudflats. Are you capable of understanding how damaging your actions may have been?
You chose to run for public office and expose your family to the harsh light of the public sphere. The woman that writes Mudflats did not make that choice. She is a private person with a passion for commenting on current affairs in Alaska.
She chose, for reasons you probably know nothing about, to remain anonymous. Certain founders of our country wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously, to avoid the threat of reprisal.
Maybe the woman who writes Mudflats has a boss who would fire her for her views.
Maybe she has an abusive boyfriend who would beat her for her views.
Did you know any of this when you took her privacy and threw it in the garbage? Of course not.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
If if you want to really express your outrage, you should write an email to the Democrats with the real power, the Minority Leader and Minority Whip. There email addresses are rep.beth.kerttula@legis.state.ak.us,
rep.david.guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us .
Here’s the email I sent:
Dear Minority Leader Kerttula and Minority Whip Guttenberg,
You may or may not be aware of this but a fellow member of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Mike Doogan, has taken it upon himself to trample upon the privacy of a citizen of Alaska. Rep. Doogan recently unilaterally and maliciously revealed the identity of a anonymous female blogger who writes the site Mudflats. Rep. Doogan’s actions were reprehensible and will involuntarily expose this poor woman and her family to the harsh light of the public media spotlight.
Please find below my email to Rep. Doogan complaining about his deplorable actions. I hope that you will take this matter under advisement and consider how poorly these actions by Rep. Doogan tarnish the image of the Democratic Party in Alaska.
If you want to really spread the word, you should email the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics. Their emails are Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us,
Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us,
Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us,
Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us .
Here’s the email I sent:
Dear Reps. Coghill and Gardner and Sens. Stevens and Wagoner,
You may or may not be aware of this but a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, Rep. Mike Doogan, has taken it upon himself to trample upon the privacy of a citizen of Alaska. Rep. Doogan recently unilaterally and maliciously revealed the identity of an anonymous female blogger who writes the blog Mudflats. Rep. Doogan’s actions were reprehensible and will involuntarily expose this poor woman and her family to the harsh light of the public media spotlight.
Please find below my email to Rep. Doogan complaining about his deplorable actions. As members of the Alaska legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics, I hope that you will take this matter under advisement and consider how poorly these actions by Rep. Doogan tarnish the image of the Alaska legislature.
Dear Rep. Doogan,
While reading the news today, I was shocked to find out that you took it upon yourself to reveal the identity of the anonymous blogger behind Mudflats. Are you capable of understanding how damaging your actions may have been?
You chose to run for public office and expose your family to the harsh light of the public sphere. The woman that writes Mudflats did not make that choice. She is a private person with a passion for commenting on current affairs in Alaska.
She chose, for reasons you probably know nothing about, to remain anonymous. Certain founders of our country wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously, to avoid the threat of reprisal.
Maybe the woman who writes Mudflats has a boss who would fire her for her views.
Maybe she has an abusive boyfriend who would beat her for her views.
Did you know any of this when you took her privacy and threw it in the garbage? Of course not.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
If if you want to really express your outrage, you should write an email to the Democrats with the real power, the Minority Leader and Minority Whip. There email addresses are rep.beth.kerttula@legis.state.ak.us,
rep.david.guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us .
Here’s the email I sent:
Dear Minority Leader Kerttula and Minority Whip Guttenberg,
You may or may not be aware of this but a fellow member of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Mike Doogan, has taken it upon himself to trample upon the privacy of a citizen of Alaska. Rep. Doogan recently unilaterally and maliciously revealed the identity of a anonymous female blogger who writes the site Mudflats. Rep. Doogan’s actions were reprehensible and will involuntarily expose this poor woman and her family to the harsh light of the public media spotlight.
Please find below my email to Rep. Doogan complaining about his deplorable actions. I hope that you will take this matter under advisement and consider how poorly these actions by Rep. Doogan tarnish the image of the Democratic Party in Alaska.
If you want to really spread the word, you should email the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics. Their emails are Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us,
Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us,
Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us,
Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us .
Here’s the email I sent:
Dear Reps. Coghill and Gardner and Sens. Stevens and Wagoner,
You may or may not be aware of this but a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, Rep. Mike Doogan, has taken it upon himself to trample upon the privacy of a citizen of Alaska. Rep. Doogan recently unilaterally and maliciously revealed the identity of an anonymous female blogger who writes the blog Mudflats. Rep. Doogan’s actions were reprehensible and will involuntarily expose this poor woman and her family to the harsh light of the public media spotlight.
Please find below my email to Rep. Doogan complaining about his deplorable actions. As members of the Alaska legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics, I hope that you will take this matter under advisement and consider how poorly these actions by Rep. Doogan tarnish the image of the Alaska legislature.
-
- +0
-
-
I was the stunned recipient of the "group email" that has become infamous by now sent out by Doogan on Christmas Eve no less:
"Are you people nuts? You send me -- and everybody else in the
legislature, from the looks of things -- Spam and then lecture me
on email etiquette -- as if there were such a thing? Here's an
etiquette suggestion: Abandon your phony names, do your own
thinking and don't expect everybody to share you obsessions.
Happy holidays. Mike"
My email to him was from an Alaskan of 30 years in which I described my background, my family and talked about my acquaintances with Gov. Hammond & AG Willson Condon (who were dynamite BTW). I introduced myself in my email very thoroughly, because that's what Alaskans do. And I gave context to my request, which was to determine a true outcome in the Troopergate fiasco, short session or no. I told them if they didn't, any remaining trust in Sarah Palin would slowly erode even by people who supported her, and that it has indeed.
I am an Alaskan citizen, mother and grandmother born here, I've worked as a public servant at city and state levels, I own a business, and I wasn't in the least bit anonymous. The JERK had the nerve and stupidity to include me in his "don't spam me and stop being anonymous" snarky mass email. He lost any ounce of credibility by his rude treatment of an Alaskan who wrote a very polite email to him.
He is a sorry creep of a man, sorry to say. Whatever he was before, he is no more. He needs to apologize, retire, and he better hope nothing untoward happens to AKM so he can slip away into his sad little do nothing life. He's a small man in my eyes - microscopically small.
"Are you people nuts? You send me -- and everybody else in the
legislature, from the looks of things -- Spam and then lecture me
on email etiquette -- as if there were such a thing? Here's an
etiquette suggestion: Abandon your phony names, do your own
thinking and don't expect everybody to share you obsessions.
Happy holidays. Mike"
My email to him was from an Alaskan of 30 years in which I described my background, my family and talked about my acquaintances with Gov. Hammond & AG Willson Condon (who were dynamite BTW). I introduced myself in my email very thoroughly, because that's what Alaskans do. And I gave context to my request, which was to determine a true outcome in the Troopergate fiasco, short session or no. I told them if they didn't, any remaining trust in Sarah Palin would slowly erode even by people who supported her, and that it has indeed.
I am an Alaskan citizen, mother and grandmother born here, I've worked as a public servant at city and state levels, I own a business, and I wasn't in the least bit anonymous. The JERK had the nerve and stupidity to include me in his "don't spam me and stop being anonymous" snarky mass email. He lost any ounce of credibility by his rude treatment of an Alaskan who wrote a very polite email to him.
He is a sorry creep of a man, sorry to say. Whatever he was before, he is no more. He needs to apologize, retire, and he better hope nothing untoward happens to AKM so he can slip away into his sad little do nothing life. He's a small man in my eyes - microscopically small.
-
- +0
-
-
[u}Doogan did admit that her post about him got him curious about who she was, but denied that revealing her name had anything to do with revenge. "I just don't see how the entirely liberal and mostly Outside audience of hers is going to have some effect on what I do," he said. "And I don't consider revealing one of the state's leading political activists an act of revenge."[/u}
I think Mr. Doogan will have an interesting weekend with thousands of e-mails from Mudflats lovers from around the country and around the world. Apparently his time as a journalist was before the advent of blogging. Apparently he has no clue about the power of bloggers! Ha! Perhaps he should ask Bill O' about the loss of UPS as a program sponsor!
This man sounds so macho. Let's show him the power of bloggers (and especially female bloggers) when they are out to accomplish a mission, shall we?
I think Mr. Doogan will have an interesting weekend with thousands of e-mails from Mudflats lovers from around the country and around the world. Apparently his time as a journalist was before the advent of blogging. Apparently he has no clue about the power of bloggers! Ha! Perhaps he should ask Bill O' about the loss of UPS as a program sponsor!
This man sounds so macho. Let's show him the power of bloggers (and especially female bloggers) when they are out to accomplish a mission, shall we?
-
- +0
-
-
Doogan's action was arrogant, irresponsible, and unethical. His "theory" may or may not have validity, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it's OK for him to out whomever he chooses. I'd respect him if he made his case but respected her decision; this he did not do.
@GScott
@GScott
That's weak, Ms. Mudflat--actually, no. She's 100% correct. It's not up to Doogan, you, or me to judge her reasons for wishing to remain anonymous.
-
- +0
-
-
Political views are irrelevant. This crosses the American line. It's a new homegrown McCarthyism, brought to us by an angry old editorial writer who's now part of the elite power system and doesn't like it when he's hit with an asymmetric attack from the web.
Guess what Doogan: the web levels the playing field and you're no better than anyone else. If Mudflats wants to be anonymous, that's her right. You don't like it? Complain openly. Blog back. Comment on her site. Write letters to the editor and send them to your former employer. There are a million options available to you, and to everyone.
This isn't some case of Doogan getting mad because hackers broke into his e-mail (a la Palin) -- that's illegal and can be handled by the appropriate authorities. No, in this case Doogan appointed himself God and decided to (1) take on the little guy and show her who's boss, and (2) give everyone else his own publishing etiquette lesson and a warning against putting on airs.
I attach my name to things. That's my choice. Mudflats wanted anonymity. That was her choice. Doogan decided to take that choice away from her.
It's not Doogan's right to tell any of us how to behave or tell us what's "good" or "bad" in the publishing world. He's welcome to his opinion. But he's not welcome to actively violate the privacy, and possibly the safety, of Alaskan citizens.
Guess what Doogan: the web levels the playing field and you're no better than anyone else. If Mudflats wants to be anonymous, that's her right. You don't like it? Complain openly. Blog back. Comment on her site. Write letters to the editor and send them to your former employer. There are a million options available to you, and to everyone.
This isn't some case of Doogan getting mad because hackers broke into his e-mail (a la Palin) -- that's illegal and can be handled by the appropriate authorities. No, in this case Doogan appointed himself God and decided to (1) take on the little guy and show her who's boss, and (2) give everyone else his own publishing etiquette lesson and a warning against putting on airs.
I attach my name to things. That's my choice. Mudflats wanted anonymity. That was her choice. Doogan decided to take that choice away from her.
It's not Doogan's right to tell any of us how to behave or tell us what's "good" or "bad" in the publishing world. He's welcome to his opinion. But he's not welcome to actively violate the privacy, and possibly the safety, of Alaskan citizens.
-
- +0
-
-
Mike Doogan "Outs" the AK Muckraker
The Legislature can change people. Having lived and worked in Juneau four times I’ve seen Legislators come and go. They arrive as idealists fresh off the campaign and sometimes leave members of the “corrupt bastards club”. Mike Doogan has changed, not in the corrupt bastards sense, but in a sadder, an angrier sense.
I consider Mike Doogan a friend of mine. I contributed to his campaign for the House. His recent behavior in regards to exposing the AK Muckraker is very disturbing to me, but not surprising. Late last year I had been discussing with a friend how angry and cynical Mike had become. Other Legislators had shared with me that he wasn’t taking on any of the real leadership in the minority or other heavy-lifting tasks that could easily have been available to him. And when I read the dueling letters early this year in the Anchorage Press, I really wondered why Mike was so angry.
Deep down Mike is a journalist of the old school variety, the Edward R. Murrow type. As a columnist Mike took his fair share of shots from politicians he took on, because his name was attached to the column. For Mike to see others able to do this under different, new rules must be frustrating for him.
In the last year I have found myself in conversations with traditional journalists who are honestly and deeply concerned about the demise of the newspaper and of their style of journalism. These are good people in general. But, partially with their complicity, they were sold a bill of goods. Mainstream journalism has for some time now moved closer and closer to entertainment and further from the brand they studied at places like the University of Missouri, or University of Alaska. Nowhere is this truer than cable TV news.
But another more profound change happened to journalism in the world, a change that happened very quickly, and which left many of the older brand journalists scratching their heads. Unfortunately, American cities across the country are losing their papers either entirely, or they are becoming on-line versions in an effort to stay connected to today’s rapidly changing information marketplace.
Blogs and bloggers are at the heart of this change. Today people everywhere, even in China, are exposed to an unlimited variety of information from too many media to count. And, we have become much more critical consumers.
A survey of 10,000 blog readers earlier this year showed that 61% of respondents found blogs to be more honest than other media outlets. Mary Hodder, a product manager for Technorati offers four reasons for this change:
1.Blogs have niche expertise; newspapers try to cover too much and therefore are not experts.
2.Bloggers are more transparent because they are upfront about their biases. Readers trust themselves to be able to weigh these and to glean a balanced view from what they read.
3.Bloggers link to documents and sources so the process is transparent, verifiable, and easy for the reader to review.
4.And perhaps most important, when a blogger makes a mistake the credible bloggers take responsibility right next to the original posting, not on page 7.
I think the world still needs good, fact-checking, multiple-source journalism, but blogging and bloggers are much more relevant and important to today’s information consumer, than journalists realize. There is room in this world for both and they don’t have to operate by just one set of rules.
So two things have now happened with Mike Doogan’s “outing” of the AK Muckraker. First, Mike has struck out against a force he is having a hard time embracing and won’t be able to stop. Secondly, the author of The Mudflats has been brought face to face with hopefully the next stage of her writing life.
At the end of her entry “In Exposing the Identity of Mudflats, Rep. Mike Doogan Exposes Himself” she says she will take a moment to consider what this means. Well I for one hope that my friend Mike Doogan takes a moment to consider whether he is doing any real good in Juneau and whether Juneau is doing him any real good. Secondly, I hope our AK Muckraker continues her efforts at producing an outstanding forum for progressive discussion in and outside of Alaska. And, that she thanks Mike Doogan for kicking her forward into the next stage for The Mudflats.
The Legislature can change people. Having lived and worked in Juneau four times I’ve seen Legislators come and go. They arrive as idealists fresh off the campaign and sometimes leave members of the “corrupt bastards club”. Mike Doogan has changed, not in the corrupt bastards sense, but in a sadder, an angrier sense.
I consider Mike Doogan a friend of mine. I contributed to his campaign for the House. His recent behavior in regards to exposing the AK Muckraker is very disturbing to me, but not surprising. Late last year I had been discussing with a friend how angry and cynical Mike had become. Other Legislators had shared with me that he wasn’t taking on any of the real leadership in the minority or other heavy-lifting tasks that could easily have been available to him. And when I read the dueling letters early this year in the Anchorage Press, I really wondered why Mike was so angry.
Deep down Mike is a journalist of the old school variety, the Edward R. Murrow type. As a columnist Mike took his fair share of shots from politicians he took on, because his name was attached to the column. For Mike to see others able to do this under different, new rules must be frustrating for him.
In the last year I have found myself in conversations with traditional journalists who are honestly and deeply concerned about the demise of the newspaper and of their style of journalism. These are good people in general. But, partially with their complicity, they were sold a bill of goods. Mainstream journalism has for some time now moved closer and closer to entertainment and further from the brand they studied at places like the University of Missouri, or University of Alaska. Nowhere is this truer than cable TV news.
But another more profound change happened to journalism in the world, a change that happened very quickly, and which left many of the older brand journalists scratching their heads. Unfortunately, American cities across the country are losing their papers either entirely, or they are becoming on-line versions in an effort to stay connected to today’s rapidly changing information marketplace.
Blogs and bloggers are at the heart of this change. Today people everywhere, even in China, are exposed to an unlimited variety of information from too many media to count. And, we have become much more critical consumers.
A survey of 10,000 blog readers earlier this year showed that 61% of respondents found blogs to be more honest than other media outlets. Mary Hodder, a product manager for Technorati offers four reasons for this change:
1.Blogs have niche expertise; newspapers try to cover too much and therefore are not experts.
2.Bloggers are more transparent because they are upfront about their biases. Readers trust themselves to be able to weigh these and to glean a balanced view from what they read.
3.Bloggers link to documents and sources so the process is transparent, verifiable, and easy for the reader to review.
4.And perhaps most important, when a blogger makes a mistake the credible bloggers take responsibility right next to the original posting, not on page 7.
I think the world still needs good, fact-checking, multiple-source journalism, but blogging and bloggers are much more relevant and important to today’s information consumer, than journalists realize. There is room in this world for both and they don’t have to operate by just one set of rules.
So two things have now happened with Mike Doogan’s “outing” of the AK Muckraker. First, Mike has struck out against a force he is having a hard time embracing and won’t be able to stop. Secondly, the author of The Mudflats has been brought face to face with hopefully the next stage of her writing life.
At the end of her entry “In Exposing the Identity of Mudflats, Rep. Mike Doogan Exposes Himself” she says she will take a moment to consider what this means. Well I for one hope that my friend Mike Doogan takes a moment to consider whether he is doing any real good in Juneau and whether Juneau is doing him any real good. Secondly, I hope our AK Muckraker continues her efforts at producing an outstanding forum for progressive discussion in and outside of Alaska. And, that she thanks Mike Doogan for kicking her forward into the next stage for The Mudflats.
-
- +0
-
-
That's weak, Mr. Doogan. Show some respect for privacy. At least you should've asked the woman before outing her. People shouldn't need to expose themselves to hate mail and threats from gun nuts to "influence public policy."
That's weak, Ms. Mudflat. If you have a good reason for staying anonymous then you should say so (if there's a reason your reason needs to stay secret, then say THAT). But don't hide behind all the conceivable reasons at once when maybe none of them are true. It's outrageous, for example, when paid political hacks or oil industry shills try to hide their identity.
That's weak, Ms. Mudflat. If you have a good reason for staying anonymous then you should say so (if there's a reason your reason needs to stay secret, then say THAT). But don't hide behind all the conceivable reasons at once when maybe none of them are true. It's outrageous, for example, when paid political hacks or oil industry shills try to hide their identity.
-
- +0
-
-
Way to muck up the Mudflats, "Big Brother" Doogan. Feel better now?
Must all 'anonymous bloggers' now worry about being outed to satisfy your new self-righteous sense of 'public policy.'?
A former fan.
Must all 'anonymous bloggers' now worry about being outed to satisfy your new self-righteous sense of 'public policy.'?
A former fan.
-
- +0
-
-
Doogan said, "My own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name."
I'm not sure this is entirely true. For example Nixon's role in Watergate might not have been discovered by Woodward and Berstein without their anonymous source. Sometimes it is reasonable for people to be anonymous.
I hope Jeanne Chilton and her family will not get harassed or penalized as a consequence of Mr. Doogan's actions. If she does that would rationalize why she wished to be anonymous.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. For example Nixon's role in Watergate might not have been discovered by Woodward and Berstein without their anonymous source. Sometimes it is reasonable for people to be anonymous.
I hope Jeanne Chilton and her family will not get harassed or penalized as a consequence of Mr. Doogan's actions. If she does that would rationalize why she wished to be anonymous.
-
- -1
-
-
Miller victory: How Murkowski fumbled in GOP primary 
Murkowski v. Miller: What happened? 
Who's Joe Miller? 
Missing Alaska pilot has crash history 
In Alaska's Joe Miller, Sarah Palin finds her Rocky Balboa
As the Supreme Court held in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission: