I’m not asking for a debate. 
In what way does courage = credibility? That’s not an equation that comes naturally to me. Why are the words of the non-couragous not worth consideration?
-FrL-
Clarification request:
“…opinions…” Isn’t that an editorial? So, anonymous … ?factual? … reporting is acceptable? (Or do you believe it is impossible to report without reflecting one’s personal opinions?)
What if one is very well known in one field, but writes articles about a different field, and doesn’t want either professional personna infected by the other? If, for example, a well-known character actor who specializes in screw-ball romantic comedies writes articles about the economy? Excellent work in both or either field could be discredited by the other.
Having been professionally damaged by rumors, I do not think the OP should out the author unless s/he has personal knowledge or reliable documentary evidence. But my professional is NOT journalism, so my opinion isn’t just the knee-jerk reaction of a person who values privacy.
I thought I understood what the term white supremacy meant. Apparently I don’t. I read the article. OK my eyes glazed over about halfway through. I saw nothing indicating white supremacy or even racism. If you are against Obama and write a rambling incoherent article you are a white supremist?
Is he famous? Would any of us likely have heard of him?
Is he living a lie? Publicly spouting touchie-feely-liberal statements under his real name?
Oh hell, out him, let the chips fall where they may. This is my opinion, I have no particular basis in theory or practice to back it up.
Cecil’s gay?
Seriously, you’ve admitted that you just want to out the guy to get the “devilish glee” from people knowing who he really is and him not being able to say whatever he wants without people being able to connect the two persona.
I’ve not read all of his articles, I’ve read what you posted and quickly scanned other article titles and summaries, but I get the feeling that most people would consider this guy to be a bit extreme in his views. I imagine that most of the people who read what he writes fall into two categories: those who agree with him (which would presumably make them also a bit extreme in their views) and people like you who are entertained by his writing, but don’t look to them for any sort of serious world views. If you outed him, I doubt it would affect either of those two groups. Would the extremists care? Would those who read his writing for entertainment cease to be entertained by it?
If you’re outing him just to be mean, just for the devilish glee with no other purpose, I wouldn’t do it. If you disagree with me on who his readers are or if they’re ideas will be changed by knowing who they are, then I would definitely consider it.
If you’re talking about traditional newspaper terminology, then yes, opinion pieces would be found on the editorial pages. The editorial is the studied opinion of the newspaper’s editorial board, usually made up of the publisher and top editors. Columns are opinion pieces by recurring, usually paid, columnists who may work for the newspaper, be syndicated, or free-lance for one or more publications. Essays are one-time pieces written to address a specific topic. And, of course, there are letters to the editor, proof again of the miserable job public education is doing in America. (That’s an opinion, by the way.) In all of those cases, the name of the person who wrote the piece absolutely must be published.
Reporting of news often occurs under a byline, but not always. It depends on the importance and size of the article. In 1983, when my life was threatened for reporting on the activities of a gang leader in northern Colorado, my editors offered to remove my name from the stories. I refused. It was very scary, but I’m glad I did it. It was important to me that all of our readers know that I was the one on the story. But routine “community update” types of reporting – obituaries, meeting minutes, courthouse news, that kind of stuff – rarely carries a byline.
Objective reporting is possible, but rare.
Because they can be easily trying to manipulate the public for gain.
Like when a movie studio invents a reviewer to give a positive review of a movie. The reason they do this is simply to get more people to see the movie and make more money.
A review of a movie by Roger Ebert has more credibility than one by ‘random internet dude’ because we know who’s side Mr. Ebert’s bread is butter upon.
For more serioius issues, this is even more important. Is that scientest who said global warming is not real in the paid employment of the coal industry?
If we don’t know the real person who wrote it, how would we know?
All journalists have ‘influences’. Cultural ones, employment ones, we as people who read the news have to be able to see those in order to judge why they are saying what they are saying.
I don’t know whether Rush actually read the whole thing, but I’m reasonably assured that most of his listeners wouldn’t. And for once, I’m on their side; if not for the recurrence of Obama’s name, I’d suspect it was a string of unrelated paragraphs that were merged into a single document due to some concatenation error.
Early favorite for “Most Humorous Use of the Word ‘Concatenation.’”
There are a few people who would beg to differ. Anonymous or pseudonymous writing means unconditionally that the person behind the pseudonym has no credibility? Nonsense.
But of course my real name isn’t “Otto” so I suppose my opinion’s not worth anything.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to dig up the old founding documents.
But first let me dispose of our use of pseudonyms on discussion boards. As I said in my first post, it’s fun to use fake names on discussion boards. It lets us pretend to be someone we’re not, to escape too-close scrutiny in the event we let our fingers write checks our brains can’t cash. In the overall scheme of political discourse, however, Straightdope.com isn’t a major player in forming opinions. But your point is well-taken; and no, if you seriously wrote an opinion piece for a respected journal, and refused to use your own name, you would have no credibility.
Now, to the pamphlets, screeds, opinions and other writings associated with the American Revolution: Remember, I said disclosure has been a guiding principle of American journalism for the past 200 years. That’s not a hard, fast fact, since the principles of modern journalism evolved over most of the 19th century, but major circulation newspapers began formulating standards of credibility early in the 1800s. It was a time of explosive growth among dailies, and competition soon got pretty fierce. Publishers then, as now, were primarily in the business to make money, and lots of it. And they knew that only by bringing lots of people to their pages could they wring the cash necessary from advertisers. They realized that if they weren’t believable – that is, if they lacked credibility – they would lose readers. Wikipedia’s entry on journalism ethics sums up pretty well what a news agency must do to retain its credibility:
Notice the words “public accountability”. That’s where bylines come in.
The article referenced in the OP isn’t just some blather posted on a discussion thread. It’s on the Asia Times Online front page, and Asia Times Online purports to be
So ATO is styling itself as a “serious” news outlet, like Slate or Salon. Fine, then its correspondents and contributors should be held to the same standards of public accountability as other publications.
I still say, out the sonofabitch.
If I’m a gay member of the United States military subject to discharge if I disclose my identity, why does my desire to preserve my livelihood automatically invalidate my opinion about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? If I’m a gay professional athlete writing about homophobia in professional sports, why is my opinion automatically invalid because I’m writing it from a position of concern for my continued career? If I’m a gay man living in Iran, why is my opinion on Iranian repression invalidated by my need for anonymity to save my life? I’m not saying that these are identical or even necessarily comparable to the situation being contemplated by the OP; just pointing out that it’s not quite as black and white as you’re making it out to be.
Yes, it is.
I use my real name on that forum, but no one knows it, because my last name is also a word with several meanings. 
My name is Erek Tinker btw, I’ve been to dopefests, and I don’t mind you knowing who I am.
Oh, OK, I guess in the face of such an overwhelmingly persuasive argument as “yes, it is” I have no choice but to drop my petals and fold my tent. How ever could I have thought differently, when an argument with the power of “yes, it is” was out there? If only I could come up with an argument that comes close to encompassing the majesty of “yes, it is” to refute it.
Oh wait.
I have it.
Ready?
Here it comes.
No, it isn’t.
Sorry, you just flunked Journalism Ethics 101. We have no time for free thinkers like you. We are journalists, our values and judgements are absolute. You don’t measure up.