Commenter supports Chronicle’s outing; I respond

Yesterday I posted Chronicle editor defends outing; I respond.

At the end of the post was a comment from a reader on the thread of Chronicle editor David Graham’s column in which he outed “the cowardly” John Matthews and said he looked forward to comments from him and “his ilk.”

There are now 56 comments on the thread, the great majority of them critical of Graham for his column and The Chronicle (TC), for what many commenters see as on the whole a very weak year for TC. You can read Graham's column and its thread here.

I picked from the thread a comment I thought was one of the most favorable supporting Graham and TC.

I want to present it here without any intro or inter comments so you can read it for yourselves first.

But after that I’ll present it again in italics with my comments in plain.

Now the supporting comment (It's a paste-in except for the sics)

posted 4/28/08 @ 12:30 PM EST

"People have a right to remain anonymous, especially if The Chronicle has promised them that."

Graham never promised you your anonymity John Matthews. From a journalistic perspective YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR ANONYMITY. Nor do you have a moral right to remain anonymous because you are attacking people publicly without any recourse for them to criticze (sic) you in the same manner. That is cowardly. You don't seem to have a problem not respecting people's wishes for things to be discussed off the record. I don't see why Graham needs to respect a promise that he did not make to you about information he learned on his own. You are a bitter old man complaining to a few thousand zealots about some conspiracy tht (sic) did not exist in the Allen Building. Guess what John? They screwed up, but not as badly as you are in treating this two years out as if it's a scandal that is of grave importance to the future of mankind. You are an absolute disgrace to this University.

Now my response:

"Graham never promised you your anonymity John Matthews."

How do you know that?

"From a journalistic perspective YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR ANONYMITY."

If sources are promised anonymity, they have a right to expect journalists and publications will respect the promise so long as the sources have not lied to the journalists or publications.

"Nor do you have a moral right to remain anonymous because you are attacking people publicly without any recourse for them to criticze (sic) you in the same manner."

Putting aside for now the matter of whether I have what you call "a moral right to remain anonymous," your statement about people "without any recourse to criticize [me] in the same manner" is nonsense.

The Chronicle is a newspaper. It has a Web site. Anyone I "attack" can respond on blogs.

Many people at Duke have loudly and often criticized me and others who've challenged the Hoax, the witch hunt, including the media franzy, the frame-up attempt, and the ongoing cover-up of them.

The criticisms have been made in all manner of public forums, professional publications and general circulation newspapers. I have no doubt I’ll be criticized in forthcoming books.

There have also been threats.

TC itself editorialized last year attacking bloggers it said "slander[ed]" President Brodhead. It didn't give any examples of the “slander” it alleged, but I was one of two bloggers TC mentioned.

Have you noticed yet that in all their criticisms of me Graham, McCartney and others have failed to cite a specific instance of any criticism of TC they thought was unfair?

All they cite is the fact that I refused to get into unilateral "off the record" relationships with Graham and McCartney, and that after letting each repeatedly know that I did what ethical journalists do as their protection from being victims of unilateral "off the record."

"That is cowardly."

You do know, don't you, that I knew TC knew who I was and could out me at any time?

"You don't seem to have a problem not respecting people's wishes for things to be discussed off the record."

I can’t recall ever having a problem as a blogger respecting off the record agreements with sources with whom I’d mutually entered into an off the record agreement.

On the other hand, when someone like Ryan McCartney, with whom I’d had many discussions and email exchanges on why ethical journalists don’t allow themselves to be manipulated into unilateral off the record agreements;

and who’d agreed that was right (remember "technically ... yes");

and one of whose previous communications he’d labeled unilaterally “off the record” I’d published as a means of letting him know I would not any longer stand for being manipulated into unilateral “off the record” situations;

and then months later sends me an email in which he states I’d gotten an important matter wrong and questions my honesty and my motives but wants that all "off the record;"

with all of that I hope you can understand why in this day of instant cyber-communication, access to the Net and Googling, I’d be a fool not to publish and refute what he sent.

"I don't see why Graham needs to respect a promise that he did not make to you about information he learned on his own."

As President Reagan once said, "There you go again." How do you know that?

"You are a bitter old man complaining to a few thousand zealots about some conspiracy tht (sic) did not exist in the Allen Building."

I’m surprised you didn’t say something like: “You’re a bitter old man who clings to a few thousand zealots who out of frustration at their circumstances believe a conspiracy theory.”

"Guess what John? They screwed up, but not as badly as you are in treating this two years out as if it's a scandal that is of grave importance to the future of mankind."

I’m glad we agree the Allen Building didn’t respond well – to say the least – to the lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong. I think how the University responded has great importance for the present and future of Duke, Durham and America.

Now, below is your closing sentence. I’ll let you have the last word and say nothing in response to it.

"You are an absolute disgrace to this University."