Read on Twitter
Just saw a book review on @ArcDigi co-authored by "a philosopher who prefers to remain anonymous." Seriously? What possible justification is there for publishing that anonymously? It& #39;s cowardly, unaccountable, unprofessional, and journalistically unacceptable.
There is a place for anonymity. Every time I have used an anonymous source in a story, I have had to have a reason, and I& #39;ve had to explain the reason to my editor and the reader. Sometimes publications run personal essays by anonymous writers, usually about stigmatized topics.
But I& #39;m not sure I& #39;ve ever seen a book review written by an anonymous author and I& #39;m having a hard time thinking of any reason why that would be ok. To assess the validity and fairness of the review, you need to know who wrote it.
It& #39;s not like you can& #39;t get anyone else to write a book review. Anonymity has a place in journalism, but it has to have a good reason. And "this person prefers to remain anonymous" is not a good reason.
If you want to review a book anonymously, great! Do it on Amazon or on your blog. But legitimate publications should not publish anything anonymously -- not a quote from a source, and not a byline -- without a good reason that is communicated to the reader. This is basic.
Why? Because readers need to know if there& #39;s a conflict of interest and if the reviewer has any personal relationship with the author (a question an editor has asked me before assigning every book review I& #39;ve ever done). Readers deserve to know a reviewer& #39;s priors & point of view
For example: One major publication assigned a well-known anti-feminist writer to review my first book, which was about feminism. The review was very funny and well-written, but not very nice! Running it was legitimate; running it anonymously would have been dishonest.
And yes, I have read the Economist. They don& #39;t randomly allow anonymous book reviews; they publish most of their articles with an institutional voice, many people contribute to those pieces, and they explain all those reasons to their readers up-front.
Anyway, I will get off of this, but like many folks I am concerned by the over-reliance on anonymous sources in mainstream reporting - it can be necessary, but it also can be manipulative. I am concerned about the erosion of certain safeguards that protect us from disinformation.
