It was nice to read more encouraging comments last night from Miss Universe New Zealand 2007 contestants in my private email. Most had seen the other blog where I have been defending both the judging and Laural Barrett herself, and concluded that the negative comments were probably motivated by sour grapes. They disspelled the rumours, which was refreshing.
Funny how anonymity encourages the dark side of human behaviour, and in the blogosphere, the veil is so much easier to get and maintain.
One of these days, I will start using aliases. I know some Hollywood friends do it, but I am nowhere nearly as famous as they are. (I do notice that I am nearly up to the same amount of Google references as one well known actress though!)
I kind of did become acting pageant director in Val’s absence when Radio Live called me on Easter Day trying to secure an interview with Laural for this morning! Hopefully it went down well. I was awoken at 4 a.m. by a phone call and consequently got up later than planned this morning.
I am sensing that more people than I credited can see through The Press’s article and the forces behind it. The American end should know that it was all “just another Rosie O’Donnell” and it appears it has not raised any eyebrows. We might just let sleeping dogs lie this week. Posted by Jack Yan, 00:27
Anonymity can encourage the dark side if the person has one. The reason it can encourage the dark side is because if you can do a nasty action but not pay any consequences, you may (if you have a dark side) be more likely to do it. I would give less value to any anonymous person's comments than a person who puts their name by it because them claiming anonymity makes me question how much they believe in what they're saying. If you believe strongly enough in a matter, you should be prepared to put your name to it and take any flak that comes with that position.
Concerning what is posted on the blogosphere, I hope people will ask where the blog got their information before they accept if it's valid or not. You can say anything you want on the blogosphere but that doesn't make it true. If a blog wants to be taken seriously, they need to name their sources. If they don't give them, anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt i.e. it could be total rubbish.
Excellent points, Ron. I certainly would place less credence on anything anonymous and may even begin blocking all anonymous comments here. They are often less well thought out anyway. I have (99 per cent of the time) posted under my real name, for better or worse, for the very reason you state. I’ve really nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of.
As to sources, I partly agree. I know regular media tend not to name sources. Even then, there is trouble: Jayson Blair comes to mind. I would go with the default position of not naming sources. But, if the blogger wishes to be taken seriously, then when (s)he is called out the source, should either seek permission to name him or her, or at least offer up some proof of the source’s legitimacy.
PS.: With naming sources, I should add within reason to the end of the above.Post a Comment
Links to this post:
NoteEntries from 2006 to the end of 2009 were done on the Blogger service. As of January 1, 2010, this blog has shifted to a Wordpress installation, with the latest posts here.
With Blogger ceasing to support FTP publishing on May 1, I have decided to turn these older pages in to an archive, so you will no longer be able to enter comments. However, you can comment on entries posted after January 1, 2010.
Individual JY&A and Medinge Group blogs
DonateIf you wish to help with my hosting costs, please feel free to donate.
Copyright ©200210 by Jack Yan & Associates. All rights reserved. Photograph of Jack Yan by Chelfyn Baxter.