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'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'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'm not sure I've ever seen a book review written by an anonymous author and I'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's not like you can'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'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've ever done). Readers deserve to know a reviewer'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'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.
