NRO Outs Kos’ Armando
A substantial controversy is brewing in the blogosphere over National Review Online media columnist Stephen Spruiell’s revealing the identity of Armando, a previously anonymous contributor to DailyKos and other sites.
This quickly led to Armando’s announcement that he was likely giving up the blogging, presumably because of pressure from his employer. (Although, oddly, he has continued posting at Swords Crossed unabated.)
Spruiell followed up:
[M]y goal in writing about Armando’s work was not to “silence” him, as many have suggested. My post raised questions about potential conflicts of interest between his work and his blogging, and I fully expected him to address those questions — so much so that I was trying to anticipate his responses and prepare a rebuttal. The last thing I expected was his announcement that he was planning to quit blogging as a result of my post.
His announcement was so unexpected to me because everything I wrote was based on information that Armando himself had shared with other web sites — his full name, his work affiliation, and his role as a blogger at Daily Kos are all listed together on these sites. He also posted his picture on his bio at another high-profile liberal blog. Yet for some reason, many are claiming that until I published this information, Armando’s identity was a well-kept secret. That is simply false.
Armando’s identity, day job, and the fact that he blogged at Daily Kos is in fact on the program of events at a conference held at the Stanford Law School. I’m not sure which “high-profile liberal blog” Spruiell refers to; it’s not Huffington Post, I checked there. [Update: Spruiell emails that it’s TPM Cafe. The photo used? The same as on his law firm profile page. It’s a flattering pic, to be sure, but hardly the best in cloak and dagger tradecraft.]
The weblog of the Online Integrity Statement of Principles, of which I am a signatory, condemns the move in an unsigned post:
It is the consensus at OI that such information should remain private in the absence of a compelling reason for disclosure. That compelling reason appears to be absent here. OI asks that Mr Spruiell take down the relevant information in the spirit of graciousness and respect.
The Statement says, with respect to this issue:
Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behavior.
Spruiell seems to be arguing that Armando’s failure to disclose potential conflicts between his day job and his online positions is misleading and therefore newsworthy.
Joshua Treviño, a co-founder of the Online Integrity project who was once himself an established pseudononymous blogger and who co-blogs with Armando at Swords Crossed, is quite ambivalent about the whole thing.
The end served by the accession to this fiction is the facilitation of anonymous and pseudonymous actors in the given space — in this case, the blogosphere. The communal benefits of this facilitation are obvious: actors who might be otherwise unable to participate can lend their voices; and for the actors themselves, there is some mitigation of personal consequence. The communal negatives are equally obvious: accountability and social inhibition often diminish in proportion with consequence. Respect for anonymity and pseudonymity is therefore mostly a calculation of whether the pros outweigh the cons.
Davinci, blogging at the site where Treviño established his Tacitus identity, writes, “That people have seen fit to look for his real persona and try and use his clients against him is sad. It will only make the divide in our country that much worse if tit for tat reprisals start to happen. The dialog even in disagreement is good for our country.”
John Cole is angry that Armando was outed but thinks he was ridiculously careless for someone trying to protect his privacy. Still, “What was done to him was wrong, considering his expressed desire for privacy and obvious attempts to maintain his anonymity . . . . Armando is the victim here, and I am really angry at NRO and the folks behind this.”
Greg Prince and Obsidian Wings’ von echoe Cole’s sentiments.
All refuse to link to Spruiell’s posts, presumably following the Statement‘s “enforcement” provision: “Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.” While often logical, that strikes me as silly in this case because one can’t talk about it rationally without referring to Spruiell and NRO by name and, incidentally, linking to Spruiell’s post explaining his actions which, in turn, links to the initial post.
Leon Wolf, another of the Swords Crossed bloggers, saved me the effort of emailing Spruiell by doing it first and publishing the results. They’re rather illuminating. Most notably, if one does a Google search on “Armando Daily Kos” (omitting the quotation marks) the 4th result gives you his identity without even having to click through. It’s an entry in the wildly popular Wikipedia. That Armando maintained any level of anononymity is incredible.
Still, Wolf is right to point out the moral dilemmas involved here:
All of us could, of course, hide behind pseudonyms, but there is some value to be lent to a person who is willing to attach his name to his pontifications – that’s not reason to associate that person’s clients with his polemicism unless he’s failed to disclose a conflict of interest, in my book. The only reason I can imagine for Spruiell to have done this was to discredit Armando among liberals by associating him with Wal-Mart, which is a shameless tactic I will not condone. Further, out of respect for basic decency, the entire wikipedia kerfluffle which Spruiell takes careful note of should have spoken loud and clear that, while Armando’s identity might be available to anyone who does a half-diligent search, he doesn’t want his professional life (and especially not his clients) drug into the limelight to be whacked with a stick unnecessarily. Again, in the absence of a clear conflict of interest which Armando failed to disclose (and I’ve seen no evidence of this), mentioning the firm and the clients was nothing more than a political cheap shot.
That strikes me as the right set of questions to be asking. What was the transgression committed by Armando which outweighed the “basic decency” of protecting Armando’s privacy? According to Spruiell’s tipster:
During his time filling in for Kos as the “front page diarist” he wrote a number of pro-corporate articles, of course without disclosing that he is a corporate attorney promoting these same issues for his clients. For example, in this post he takes the pro-corporate position that modern anti-trust law is based on activist judges’ rulings and not as the law as written. He fails to mention that he recently represented Wal-Mart in an anti-trust capacity in Puerto Rico.
Now, clearly, the point here is not to smear Armando as “a liberal working for Wal-Mart” in order to harm his standing with the Left but rather that he violated a basic principle of journalistic disclosure. For example, I routinely disclose–on a per post basis–potential conflicts with even my wife’s employer if I’m aware of them. Still, one could scarcely maintain an anonymous identify and reveal one’s clients. (I’m not sure whether publically noting that one’s firm represents a client is even advisable from a legal ethics standpoint.) And the level of harm to the reader here is mighty small compared to the potential damage done to Armando’s career.
Ultimately, I believe Spruiell’s actions here were consistent with the ethical practices of the mainstream press but not those of the online community. Reporters violate people’s privacy all the time and have no compunction about ruining the lives of people, especially powerful and/or famous people, for relatively minor transgressions. On the Internet, where no one has to know you’re a dog, there is a rather high expectation of privacy.
As both Wolf and Treviño note, that has trade-offs. It allows very gifted, knowledgable people who would otherwise be unable to do so for personal and professional reasons to be public intellectuals. At the same time, it lowers personal accountability. Certainly, I’m a different blogger as “James Joyner” than I would be under a clever pseudonym such as “James.”
As an aside, one irony over this brouhaha is that the story on Armando is given second billing in a post on the Yearly Kos convention entitled “Kos Mania!” It’s something that I would almost surely have glossed over if I were visiting Spruiell’s sideblog. As usual, the outrage over an event magnifies the attention immeasurably.
UPDATE: Be sure to read the comments below; some excellent discussion is going on.
UPDATE (June 22): I’ve written quite a bit more in a follow-up post: “NRO Outs Kos’ Armando II“
Odd.
Odd, how this compares to the case of Tim Russo, over in Northeast Ohio… the far-left nimbnut blogger who wanted all anonymous RIGHT wing bloggers to reveal themselves… and then once his own criminal past was revealed, shut down his blog.
Info can be put into Wikipedia by anyone, so whoever put it there was also outing Armando. It wasn’t his choice.
I don’t know. Seems the guy outed himself. Diving through someones trash can or paying someone’s maid for inside info is one thing. But if you can get all your info through a search engine based on a blogger using his real and somewhat uncommon name then, well, I’m not especially sympathetic. In fact, it makes me wonder that he might have WANTED to be outed.
Armando is like someone at a masked ball that repeatedly (and maybe deliberately) lets his mask slip and then squeals that he is recognized. He is an intelligent and educated man, isn’t he? Seems like he weighed out being egotistical and using his real name versus being anonymous and using a TRUE pseudonym. I mean, sh!t. He DIDN’T even use a pseudonym.
And I’m not at all persuaded that an online journalist should be castigated for doing his job.
That’s just my take.
Lunacy (a REAL pseudonym)
Searching simply for
Armando Kos
gets you his full name from an NPR transcript on the 4th page in google.
A little further you get the majority report stuff, where he went on air using his full name, again. A little more digging and you get where he was posting on the Clark Campaign network with his full name, again.
This isn’t rocket science folks. If you wanna remain anonymous, you don’t go on syndicated radio using your full name.
I have nothing against Armando. Or for, for that matter. It seems to me this is a tempest in a teapot.
My following remarks are general in nature and not directed against Armando specifically.
First, if professional decorum demands a particular public demeanor, pseudonymity is not the answer: you’re still obligated to maintain the demeanor in public. Second, if one’s employer has a policy against blogging, pseudonymity doesn’t solve that problem, either.
Both of these cases are instances of deceit.
I think that there are legitimate reasons for pseudonymity. For example, when the creative effect of your blog requires it, e.g. �The Manolo� or �Methuselah’s Daughter�. Or when you simply wouldn’t get a hearing without it, e.g. “George Elliot”.
We have entered an era in which there is an extraordinary ability to collect and collate information and, consequently, real privacy is vanishing. This was predicted some 30 years ago by Roger Zelazny in his �Hangman� series of stories. The World Wide Web is an extremely large public square and, when you post a notice in it, don’t be surprised when people notice.
Dave:
I was just pondering that myself. I wonder if that not were the actual issue at hand here with Armando, i.e. perhaps his online persona is not compatable with the professional persona he wishes to present.
Pretty clear consensus on left & right, it seems:
(1) The guy who outed Armando is a jerk.
(2) Armando was not working nearly hard enough to keep his identity a secret, particularly for so high-profile a blogger.
I’m sure that anyone with too much free time could find out who “Anderson” really is. But who would give enough of a damn to try in the first place? And even so, I’ve maintained a better cover than Armando. (Like John Cole said: “That’s his REAL NAME???”)
The on line community will never reach full credibility as long as anonymity is used by contributors. The MSM stands behind what is published without hiding who does the writing.
It may not be fair but it is what it is.
As a practical matter, it’s simply not feasible anymore to become well known while operating under a pseudonym on the Internet, and be able to remain pseudonymous thereafter.
And that goes double when the person in question is using his real name in any manner that can be connected to his online identity by those who don’t necessarily support his keeping his cover.
The on line community will never reach full credibility as long as anonymity is used by contributors. The MSM stands behind what is published without hiding who does the writing.
And without bothering to tell the truth, either.
“The online community” is not a monolith. There’s a place for anonymity. Anonymous pamphlets, etc. have a long & often respectable history.
If we were to focus on the merits of what’s said, rather than on the celebrity culture of who’s saying it, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
The more I think about it, the more I think anonymity is irrelevant to credibility. If I blog under “X the Mysterious” and have smart, relevant things to say, that will be recognized (assuming anyone’s reading). If I spout arrant bullshit, that too will be recognized, whether or not anyone knows my name.
I’m in the consensus Anderson mentions.
By the way, as I understand it, Armando did not do that wikepedia entry and has been trying to get it removed. OTOH – he hasn’t been very careful about protecting his anonymity in other ways.
I do disagree with McGehee, though. I’d rather people didn’t try – but I bet they’d have a real hard time finding out who ‘Harry’ of Harry’s Place is. I host them, and even I don’t know. He gets other people to pay the bills on his behalf, for instance. All I know about him is that he says his name is NOT Harry. He’s anonymous.
Ah, yes, the virtues of being anonymous, while supposedly fighting for ‘free speech’, which is the almost universal claim.
Have they forgotten John Hancock and his like so quickly?
Hancock didn’t sign the DOI in 50pt script because he was being an insufferable jerk. Nor was anyone else who signed that document with heir real name signing it as a mere matter of pride and hutzpah. Rather, they understood fully that part and parcel of ‘free speech’ is accept ing the consequences of that speech.
As Limbaugh’s father wrote:
So the Kossakcks think they’ve suffered by having their names known? I submit the crybabies have suffered not at all by comparison.
There is a price for free speech. That these morons are tring to dick it, is, to my thinking, very teling indeed.
(And before anyone who doesn’t know me well starts, I have never made any secret of who I am.)
Bithead says on the signers of the Declaration: “they understood fully that part and parcel of â??free speechâ?? is accept ing the consequences of that speech.”
Madison, Hamilton and Jay used a pseudonym when publishing the Federalist Papers. Are you claiming that the authors of our constitution didn’t understand free speech? Or that Thomas Paine didn’t when he wrote his famous Common Sense?
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were operating under threat of death from King George. Are you suggesting that the leftie nuts are operating under death threats from George Bush?
First, Armando “outed” himself through such things as appearing by name on NPR, etc. There was no “outing,” as Spruell himself said.
Second, let me say that I speak not as a conservative, but a real progressive who voted Green for president in 2004.
As for the charges, first dropped in a comment on the Washington Note May 23 by an alleged troll from Kos, IMO, Armando stands guilty as charged of hypocrisy.
From a progressive POV, he also stands guilty as charged of being a corporate shill.
And, it’s FAR MORE than just Wal-Mart. First, Armando is a partner, not just a staff attorney, at McConnell Valdes. So, all the company’s clients are his, in a sense.
And those clients include:
1. Altria (nee Philip Morris)
2. Multiple members of Big Pharma
3. GE Capital
That’s just the worst of the bad, for starters.
Read more about it on my blog.
NOTE: I got booted from Kos Friday after two successive diaries of mine commenting on this issue got deleted there. Iâ??ve done several posts on my blog related to this about the cult-like attitude of many Kossacks, which must be at least passively allowed by Markos himself and his right-hand Goebbels, Armando.
Oh, it’s also my firm belief that Armando was not interested in protecting his anonymity as a blogger from some reason of blogging purity or ethics.
Rather, I charge he was trying to protect his anonymity as a blogger to keep all his corporate legal accounts.
So, in short, it’s precisely as I said it might place several days ago; one was sought here was insulation and protection from the consequences of his publicly stated opinions.
Some freedom fighter.
Which is precisely why I brought up the signers of the declaration.
Whoa. There is a big difference between representing clients’ or an employer’s interests and approving of what they do. Does every person who wears NIKE (or sells them at foot locker) approve of child labor? Of course not.
A lawyer’s not required to believe in his clients’ causes, he’s supposed to advocate its interests. The role of the Court is to judge. That’s what “rule of law” means–everywhere, it seems, but the true fever swamps.
rumpole: My understanding is that he was indeed advocating his clients’ positions without disclosing the he worked for them and thus had a conflict. That’s a violation of standard journalistic ethics, although a fairly minor one for an opinion columnist trying (although not particularly hard) to maintain anonymity.
Conversely, if he were taking their money for acting as their advocates and yet actively undermining them in his spare time, I’d say that was undeniably unethical.
A fairly minor one?
(pause)
(PA system clicking)
Armstrong Williams, call your office, please.