And he can still fact-check your ass.

> ... instead of a million tough-ass reporters
> breaking and making news from wherever it
> happened, we've got a million little Jonah(s)....

1st, how can you be sure they're not breaking and making news? 2nd, even if not, what's wrong with that?

Bloggerdom is the first grand advance for personal expression in the new millenium. It bugs me that Layne now gets snooty about the very sort of comeuppance he once championed.

I was just gonna let that one go, but ...

Only "a handful of good columnists in the country" -- gimme a break.

There are thousands of columnists in this country, for papers and magazines big and small, and a lot of them are good. Many are excellent. Some merely write a good one every so often. I dunno, but anyone who thinks there are just a handful of good ones sounds like he doesn't read much.

Isn't this Netcentric reasoning getting old to anyone else?

This latest Ken Layne stuff is just more gibberish from an Internet guy who has to thumb his nose at traditional media to ring the "buzz" bells of his fellow bloggers. If you blog, you are obligated to do that. You guys can all delight in each other's wonderful journalism. You can all just quote each other and link each other to death. It's rarely journalism and often just computer coding.

What are Ken Layne's credentials to make such judgments about the world's columnists? That he's been blogging for four years? Oooo, must be a pioneer! Anyone who can read can see that his writing is barely so-so. "Gee, I can't post anything today because I'm going somewhere." Thanks for that.

Blogs follow each other around like dogs and their own tails. Incredibly, some just quote themselves. One of these days people will realize there's just a big circle of reciprocal links out there with nothing in the middle. All the abandoned blogs could do more damage than space junk if they all fell to Earth at the same time.

LAist is the latest disappointment. They say every cigarette you smoke takes 7 minutes off your life. Whenever I read LAist, I feel like I lost another 7 minutes off my life.

An alternative to *lazy* mainstream columnists and reporters? Most blogs just echo and/or reflect what other people say and ... who can't comment on a story and post a link? That's not lazy? Most bloggers don't know what reporting is, lest it be prowling around their favorite 12 or 13 Web sites while they're in the slippers at home in the morning and finding other people's stuff to comment on, then trashing it without a single original thought of their own. Even those who do know what reporting is rarely do any of it.

I always thought fishing was just about the laziest thing you could do. Then I learned that watching fishing shows on TV is even lazier. Blogging is a lot like watching fishing shows on TV.

My guess is that if a really good newspaper job came open and was offered to a blogger, we'd see the last of him or her online. Heck most of them shut down the minute $200 is waved in their face for a two-source feature story.

Before we completely trash blogging, let’s keep in mind its true value: just about anyone can get published virtually for free, which enhances freedom of the press.

That’s important as media increasingly is in the hands of fewer and larger corporations – I suggest you read Ted Turner’s piece in the Washington Monthly, which applies to newspapers as much as television. The independent voices of the blogosphere directly and indirectly force the mainstream media to sit up and pay attention.

If bloggers get a legitimate scoop, the big boys have to suck it up and report on it. If they don’t, they’ll eventually perish and know it.

If a great journalist appears among the ranks of bloggers, big media will hire them. That’s a good thing, for the folks who hate mainstream media. Of course, the baying hyenas out there continuously turn on bloggers who go mainstream, but that’s not really a big surprise.

If a particular media outlet becomes too biased in one direction or another, bloggers attack en masse and the journalists learn from that. This is the reason why L.A. Observed is read by every journalist in Los Angeles.

And let’s be real, most blogs are nothing more than quaint personal journals. So the writing isn’t world-class. Who cares? They’re just writing to friends and families, and don’t care a whit about all the obnoxious screaming and yelling that goes on in the blogosphere. Appreciate them for what they are: a sort of postcard society.

I agree with all of the responses above but let's face it: Blogging serves as an egocentric thrill for the unpublished. It is also the CB radio of this decade.

"But you've typed a lot of half-assed, witless opinion, too, say my critics. Yep. I am sorry about that, but not quite sorry enough to stop."

Why you have to love Ken Layne.

What did these people whine about before they had blogging to whine about?

I thought Ken Layne lived in Eagle Rock because he had a beard and was in a band, as that is the law.

> Blogging... is also the CB radio of this decade.

It needs a feelgood summertime song suitable for FM radio! One with underpaid chick singers working the chorus, like on "Convoy".

Breaker Breaker! WHERE WILL WE FIND A BLOG-SAVVY MUSICAL ENTERPRISE TO COMPOSE SUCH A PIECE?

Looks like we got us a Cor-vid.

Triple Threat,

Great post!

Professional journalism having long ago thumbed its nose at Ken Layne -- the guy who left L.A. to pursue a more hopeful freelance career in Reno -- it's probably only fair he holds a grudge now.

Triple Threat:

"What are Ken Layne's credentials to make such judgments about the world's columnists?"

If you have to ask, you're not as well-versed in media as you pretend, oh snarky critic who lobs spitballs from the safety of a Walter Mitty pseudonym.

Give your real name so we can inspect *your* journalistic credentials.

Yeah, I have to ask because it's a ridiculous statement for *anyone* to make, and I'm well-versed *enough* in the media because I read all the blogs and stuff.

But sigh ... you're right, B.J. The fact that I've posted anonymously really matters in the issue of whether Ken Layne has the credentials to judge most all of the world's columnists as lousy. Thanks for helping me to see the connection.

Triple Threat:

Such impressive credentials you have, reading "all the blogs and stuff."

Layne's reporting career in the United States and the Balkans, as novelist and blogger, pales in comparison to your self-anointed degree in A.A.J. (Anonymous Armchair Journalism). You'd have kicked Layne's ass covering Yugoslavia, that's for sure.

I look forward to more of your trenchant criticism, even if you're afraid to deliver it under your real name. But at least get a pseudonym more fitting than Triple Threat: E Umbra Audacia.

Hi Kevin. Thanks for the nice link! Some people just wrote me asking for advice about starting an L.A. media blog. My answer was, "Try to be as good as L.A. Observed."

Brad Fikes: Hey buddy! Where are you? If anybody ought have a blog, it's you. Where is it?

Hi Amy! Seeing yr nice comment made me remember I haven't updated my little blog list. (I just sorta pasted it in from one of my old blog files.) This will be corrected.

As for "good" columnists, bloggers, or anything else ... that's pretty subjective, don't you all think? But even though I'm old & slow, I still know how to get a cheap rise out of bloggers: Call 'em lazy frauds!

As for "skippy," I moved to Northern Nevada because my wife got her dream job here & we decided it was a good place to live, even if it means only seeing our L.A. friends & eating at L.A.'s great restaurants every six weeks or so, instead of all the time. Professional Journalism "thumbed its nose" at me -- and vice versa -- about 20 years ago. Any other adventures I've had in the field are happy accidents.

"Credentials" to blog about bloggers? Y'all just let me know where I sign up for that important license!

The man himself shows up! Hey Ken, I'd love to have a blog, but just don't have time to do it properly, with a full-time reporting job and all. Still at the NC Times. You can reach me at the e-mail address I gave here.

I actually agree with our anonymous little critic that most blogs aren't worth the reading or the writing. Same goes for most print publications, television or radio programs. That still leaves a lot of great blogging. As Thomas Jefferson said in a different context, they're diamonds in a dunghill.

Case in point: bloggers like Donald Sensing who skillfully eviscerated the hyped Annie Jacobsen story about her supposed near-hijacking. His background as a former Army investigator gave him the tools to expose the story as foolish nonsense, when most reporters wouldn't have been able to go beyond he said/she said.

As for the majority of other blogs that aren't worth reading -- I say don't read 'em!

Good luck on your return!

Ken Layne wasn't using his "credentials" or "license" to trash bloggers; he was trashing almost all traditional media columnists ... read the post again.

B.J., most people post anonymously here because most of us have jobs in the L.A. media. It's doesn't give their/our comments any less merit. Most bloggers post with their names here because they don't have jobs. People with real reporting and editing jobs for real media outlets, unfortunately, have to be careful about what they say with their names attached in this world. Maybe no one cares at the NC Times what you post on the Internet.

As I figured you know Ken Layne personally and are merely sticking up for him. Your loyalty is admirable. Like you, I'd probably stick up for my friends too -- no matter what.

I will willingly allow myself to be pulled into the mud, though. I spent the past 5 minutes reading some of your stories online B.J. It looks like you spend a lot of time covering business award lunches down there. I really enjoyed the lead you wrote on how the Disney company is "not a Mickey Mouse operation." Very creative.

By all means, start a blog.

Triple Threat:

Mighty fair of you to judge someone's career in five minutes using Google. Well, that's the risk of using a real name, instead of snarking from the shadows. But I'll keep posting under my name, here, on Romenesko, or wherever.

Too bad your company is such a control-freak. Or perhaps you're just ashamed to admit what you do.

People with real reporting and editing jobs for real media outlets, unfortunately, have to be careful about what they say with their names attached in this world.

In other words, "Triple Threat," you're a weenie.

And for the record, I'm a blogger who's written for "real media outlets" for a very long time. Maybe I should be more careful, but there's no law that says I have to be.

You *should* be more careful, although there's not much left of your reputation to protect.

There might not be a "law" against it, but some big newspapers have ethics policies about media-related Internet postings with names attached. Ethics policies ... now there's something new to a blogger! I guess I'm just not as courageous as you are.

"Triple Threat":

So you're now posing as an instructor on journalistic ethics? Well, *your* ethics appear rather flexible. Some big newspapers might think posting anonymous attacks on other journalists is pretty unethical.

Give your real name and credentials for passing judgment. Are you a professional journalist, as you keep implying, or just some random crank with a modem? Concealing your identity means you're just another anonymouse -- the kind lazy journalists are addicted to using in their stories.

This is the best string of messages ever!

I love you, Triple Threat, whoever you are!

I never said I was an ethics instructor. But I am smart or fearful enough to follow the policy my paper has. Otherwise I'd lose my job and be forced to blog all day.

I might be a lousy anonymous source but, B.J., you've either misunderstood or been off the mark on everything said here. Or you've tried to twist the argument to whether people should post anonymously, as if that somehow matters to the merits of the comments. Remarkable trait for a reporter. My guess is your editor down there is overworked or has given up.

Instead of pounding on the anonymity thing, why don't JUST ONE of you instead defend Ken Layne's initial trashing of virtually all U.S. newspaper and magazine columnists? How come none of you has brought this up as being the thoroughly ridiculous statement that it is? That was the original post.

Basically what we have here is three friends who jumped to the defense of their blogger buddy, and a triple poseur ethical weenie like me who dared to say something sour about one of you.

Triple Threat:

Why is anonymity a detriment, you ask? As our esteemed host advises:

"Show some guts and use your real name . . . Real names raise the level of discussion. Please use them."

I'm sorry you don't feel secure enough in your job to comply. I wish you success in finding a better one.

Triple Threat" wrote on June 23 regarding anonymity:

"The ethics policies of some newspapers forbid staff members from posting personal opinions about other media companies anywhere."

A talented journalist like yourself should have no problem getting a job at a newspaper that won't cramp your style.

"Whether anyone chooses to believe it, reporters are under a microscope now when it comes to personal behavior and their own beliefs."

I've learned to live with it, and still express my own opinions under my own name. Since you are evidently such a superior journalist -- far better than the likes of poor me -- what's stopping you from doing the same?

"Our bosses read this Web site; many of us are not independent bloggers or self-employed syndicated columnists."

It saddens me that certain narrow-minded bosses don't appreciate the polymathic talents of the Mencken of the South Bay.

As a grizzled journalistic sage once wrote of another underappreciated prima donna: "Your stories are perfect, just like you. I place your stories on a pedestal and bask in their radiance. I imagine sitting with them in darkened bistros, with soft music of Gypsy violins and eunuchs for waiters, dreaming of ancient wonders and exotic poetry, sipping fine wines and rejoicing in the feel of silk on skin. Why would I change a word of your stories?"

Although I bear less lofty credentials than that lyrical poet on the Bosphorus, I'm a full-time reporter, and have never been a blogger or self-employed syndicated columnist. I've posted a lot on Romenesko. I always use my own name and email address, and don't claim to speak for my employer.

"Making everyone identify himself or herself when posting on a site like this one might, as you say, "raise the level" of debate, but my view is that it would serve to just cut most of it right off."

I'm not in favor of making everyone identify themselves. It's just that anonymous posters are rightly taken with a grain of salt.

Getting back to another point you made, yes "Triple Threat", I'm a longtime acquaintaince of Ken's. Take that for what it's worth. My take on Ken's comment on columnists is that it was hyperbole that captured a truth. Corporate media tends to be boring, because it's afraid of controversy. Ken refused to confine himself to that Procrustean bed, and I admire him for it.

So now that I've discussed my motivations, what's *yours?* Do you bear a grudge against Ken? Do you write a column, or do you aspire to? Did some blogger call you names? Your previous posts indicate an anti-blog animus that reeks of personal humiliation.

And since by your own admission, you have violated the ethics standards of your own paper, why should we believe a word you say?

Other journalists/essayists who used pseudonyms:

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
Charles Dickens (Boz)
Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell)
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (Publius)

Not too sure if the authors of "The Federalist Papers" would've passed your ethical standards, Brad. What a bunch of cowards, eh?

Hello Inland Empress:

If Triple Threat uses his/her nom de plume to save the Republic or launch a stellar literary career, I shall gladly eat crow.

In forums like this, anonymity is rarely the vehicle for exposing some important, suppressed information. It is more often used in the manner of Triple Threat: to attack people whose identities are known, while shielding the poster from the same scrutiny. That's just petty and dishonorable.

Sometimes anonymity can be the only way of dealing with a serious matter, such as a vengeful president bent on subverting democracy. But Watergates don't come around very often.

In journalism, anomymous sources breed disrespect on behalf of the public, because the information's source and motives can't be evaluated properly. Anonymity is what Flash is to the Web: 99 percent bad.

I thought we were done with this because you were so far off-point the thread lost its way. But wow, B.J., it looks like you were up late and up again early worrying about this. Try to calm down a little.

To answer some of your silly questions, I've never been mentioned negatively in a blog, never been done wrong by a blogger, never had a friend slammed by one. I don't know Ken Layne, and I don't know you either. There's no background noise here of an ax being ground down. So drop it.

He made a ridiculous comment about the nation's columnists as a whole (and, no, I'm not a columnist either) and I pointed it out. When you finally got around to addressing what I said, you seemed to stand by it as some sort of noble move on his part. "Hyperbole that captured a truth?" It was just dumb. It wasn't true at all. It's just another example of a poor blogger sitting off somewhere being ignored and trying to say something outlandish so someone will look at him.

And now you've made another one to go along with it: That corporate media is afraid of controversies. Good grief. So there are no controversies reported by corporate media now either?

What you've done here is, except for one sentence, ignore the core of the messages and instead spent your time harping on something else. Honestly, I *knew* you were going to mention Watergate at some point. Thanks for not letting me down. Look around this Web site and see all the **dozens** of people who post anonymously. Get off it and get some sleep.

I thought we were done with this because you were so far off-point the thread lost its way. But wow, B.J., it looks like you were up late and up again early worrying about this. Try to calm down a little.

To answer some of your silly questions, I've never been mentioned negatively in a blog, never been done wrong by a blogger, never had a friend slammed by one. I don't know Ken Layne, and I don't know you either. There's no background noise here of an ax being ground down. So drop it.

He made a ridiculous comment about the nation's columnists as a whole (and, no, I'm not a columnist either) and I pointed it out. When you finally got around to addressing what I said, you seemed to stand by it as some sort of noble move on his part. "Hyperbole that captured a truth?" It was just dumb. It wasn't true at all. It's just another example of a poor blogger sitting off somewhere being ignored and trying to say something outlandish so someone will look at him.

And now you've made another one to go along with it: That corporate media is afraid of controversies. Good grief. So there are no controversies reported by corporate media now either?

What you've done here is, except for one sentence, ignore the core of the messages and instead spent your time harping on something else. Honestly, I *knew* you were going to mention Watergate at some point. Thanks for not letting me down. Look around this Web site and see all the **dozens** of people who post anonymously. Get off it and get some sleep.

Triple Threat:

I'll admit there are exceptions, but corporate media usually likes to examine controversy from a safe distance. When the outlet's actions itself become controversial, it often finds the reality too much to handle, the issue's merits notwithstanding.

That's why Disney ditched Fahrenheit 9/11.

That's why USA Today found Ann Coulter too hot to handle.

And that's why you're afraid to give your real name.

Give it up TT. The rubes are missing your point and no amount of head knocking is going to shake the cobwebs loose.

For some reason, Mr. Fikes is unwilling to address the issue at hand -- the quality of columnists -- and has instead latched on to the bogus issue of anonymity.

Hi Anonymous Alan:

"Triple Threat" attacks the credentials of others, while ducking the same scrutiny with a lame excuse. That's pretty sleazy, and I'm not going to let it pass.

BTW, it figures that TT would be defended by another anonymouse.

Gee willickers, Brad, what makes you think I'm anonymous? Allan is my real name and I provided my real email address.

What more do you want, my Social Security number? My ATM password?

Bradley said: "And that's why you're afraid to give your real name."

Bradley, are you saying this to "raise the level of debate" or to lower it with a threat?

I understand that Triple made this personal with his snarky comments about your bylines. But I can't see that anything is improved if you do the same to his. More to the point, it seems to me that this refrain ("give your real name") is rarely more than an attempt to intimidate and silence opinion. It's one of the uglier aspects to this forum, and I'm increasingly convinced it rarely does more than feed an ego or stifle a debate.

From what I've seen, anonymity is typically irrelevant (especially here as Triple pointed out)--until, that is, a named poster makes it an issue.

fwiw, I look forward to tasting your blog, Mr. Layne. All I ask from any online diary is that it's entertaining. Just make me laugh or nod now and then. I don't expect hard news, and I like to think I possess adequate radar for hyperbole and obvious exaggeration. Welcome back, I guess.

Hi Allan:

Your real name will do just fine. That typically consists of a first name and surname. If you are unfamiliar with this custom, don't hesitate to ask for help.

A Young Nobody, thank you for noticing that Triple Threat's statements about my work were not exactly conducive to raising the standard of discourse.

Somehow, I doubt TT would have behaved so pettily if his/her identity were known, and work equally vulnerable to unfriendly inspection. Such restraint would have encouraged a more civil discussion, which is what our esteemed host is asking for.

But if you consider my request to provide your real identity a threat or attempt at intimidation, I can only shake my head in wonder at such paranoia. I am not asking anyone to do something I haven't done myself.

People like TT want the freedom to attack whoever they want, but evade accountability for their actions. That double standard is hardly fair to those who have the guts to use their real names. I'll feel free to point this out whenever appropriate -- under my own name.

I'd like to hear about this L.A. area newspaper that supposedly bars named posts here. I don't believe it. They may not want you bad-mouthing anyone using your name, but then an honorable person wouldn't do it under a fake name.

Anonymous comments are a problem here. They tend to be (with exceptions) the least believable and the most aggressive. It's obvious that in too many cases, the fake-named poster uses their anonymity to attack someone else in a way that would bring them ridicule if they did it under their own name. Nothing honorable about that.