How Important True Identity for Blogger
Since first time blogging, I discouraged anonymity and anonymous blogging. I call this attitude irresponsible – if you fear the heat dont enter the kitchen., and be a good kid. I wrote several posts on the important of clear identity for any blogger to earn credibility of whatever one writes in his or her respective blogs.
There are times when clear identity is not obligatorily required, and anonymity is forgiven and understood by the readers.
There are many instances where scientific writings/bloggings will automatically earn you credibility and honour you deserve… But a lot of examples in which writing scientifically is not enough. Readers and common sense need to know what position you stand for. Credibility more often than not is very much to do with whether there’s self-interest involve or not.
But there are times where clear identity is a must and anonymity is a waste of time:
… there’re some other topics in which clarity of identity is a must unless you’re a careless person who dont need the so-called credible ‘awards.’ What kind of topics that needs clarity of identity? (a) Religion; (b) Politics; (c) Minority/majority issue [etc]..
Even worse, anonymous blogger is a liability for bloggers as a whole as their anonymity might be used to downgrade other bloggers- with clear identity -in bad lights as it’s the case with Roy Suryo’s allegation that Indonesian bloggers are just “a bunch of liars because they are never even have the gut to use their true name.
Now, look at this article written by an apparently an Obama’s campaign volunteer. Before making his points, he starts his piece with clear identity to make his case stronger and more credible:
There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better “ground game” and superior campaign organization.
I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I’m not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.
Let me make it clear: I’m pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn’t run again.
I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I’m white, 55, I live in the South and I’m definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins. [….]
That’s precisely the point I made here when I said:
…neutrality & objectivity is a one way ticket towards credibility. Yet, both are an impressionist in nature. Readers need to be convinced that you’re in a neutral position when writing on those topics.
How do readers know that you are in a neutral position? The answer is your identity. Generally, neutrality and objectivity very much related to self-criticism (against your own religion, community, political party, etc).
So, when someone known for his/her closeness to a political party, say PKS, and he/she criticises some of PKS’ policy, certainly his/her criticism has the merit to be heard; and obviously such kind of criticism has credibility. On the contrary, anonymity on this regard will have many interpretations: one migh think that you are from some other political party and hence it’s common practice to attack other parties.