The more I think about the Times’s attempt to expose Jack Night, the angrier I get.
I was once an anonymous blogger. At the same time, I was a Labour party employee. If I’d been exposed, there would have been an obvious public interest rationale for any story. I wouldn’t really have had anything to complain about, even though I was a nobody.
As a result, I deliberately turned down chances to promote myself. One of these came from Danny Finkelstein at The Times, who offered me a chance to write a Thunderer column, anonymously*. Their only condition was that the Editor know who I was.
Presumably, they wouldn’t have exposed me if I worked for them. I declined anyway. In the end, I shut down the blog in part because it was getting successful enough that exposure was likely.
As a result I’ve always had a nuanced approach to blog anonymity. If you’re Paul Staines, and go on Newsnight talking about transparency in politics, then it’s reasonable if someone says “Hold on, this guy’s got an agenda”.
If you’re Abby Lee*, and you’re exposed as a sex blogger, I’ve got more sympathy, because of the personal nature of what you’re writing about which has little public interest (ed. Though a significant amount of prurient interest), but part of me thinks you don’t accept a book deal without a certain understanding of the risks you run. Caveat Blogger.
But Jack Night isn’t in that category.
He’s just an anonymous writer. He won the Orwell prize, but he’s not been writing articles, doing lots of media or using his blog to promote himself. He didn’t even turn up to accept the prize.
Indeed, his blog’s been closed for a while so he can write a novel. He’s an ex-blogger.
So there isn’t a public interest in his exposure nor can he be accused of wanting media attention on the one hand and demanding anonymity on the other.
I’m not sure that the law is wrong. There are complex issues about people’s right to know and privacy. But I do know that the Times was wrong to expose Jack.
So I suggest we all write to Danny Finkelstein, who is a decent person, a good blogger and a friend to anonymous writers and ask him to put these points to his Editor, and for the Times to apologise to Jack Night. The email address is commentcentral@thetimes.co.uk.
You might want to quote their own blog, which said this morning:
“Gone are the days when the government can stifle speech entirely. Like whack-a-moles, new voices from the crowd emerge through the communication clampdown” and suggest that since it is a relief that Governments can no longer stifle free speech, it should not be the job of Newspapers to take their place at the mole whacking station.
*I think they did this for a few people. I remember Harry from Harry’s place doing articles in the Times anonymously.
** Do not click on this Link if you are in the parliamentary estate. It’s SFW, but banned for some reason.
44 Comments
June 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The full High Court judgment is available at Bailii:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1358.html
Author of A Blog and Times Newspapers Ltd
June 16, 2009 at 4:56 pm
You do make some very good points Hopi but they key to the public interest in this case was Night Jack behaving in a way that was incompatible with being a serving police officer.
If it would have been wrong for him to go down to the pub and share the gory details of cases with his mates then it’s wrong for him to share them online.
Similarly publishing a guide on how frustrate the justice system if you are arrested doesn’t seem compatible with being a detective.
There are two issues here, one is the law which is very clear on this issue (this is NOT a landmark judgment) – it would have been an affront to freedom of expression if that injunction had been granted.
The second issue is how the Times behaved. Personally I think it is a decent story, and more importantly they can rely on the same public interest argument that Eady did – you can’t go revealing unknown details of sex cases on the internet and expect people to accept it and not go looking for you.
The hypocrisy argument is based on the fact that if Night Jack had fed info to the Times they would have gone to huge lengths to protect his anonymity but that’s just how journalism works, protect your sources, expose everything else.
June 16, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Anon73,
I don’t dispute your interpretation of the law -indeed, I don’t see how Eady could have made any other decision, much as I’d like him to have done so.
My problem is with the Times wanting to make his name public. What for? NJ wasn’t out making waves for kicks, or trying to make money out of blogging. As far as I know he did one piece in the Observer a month ago which basically reprinted his blog posts (in which he very decently recommended this blog, so maybe he’ll see this sometime)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/17/night-jack-orwell-prize
What the Times have done is basically make it much more difficult for someone to write about their life – With Paul, Zoe, and myself I’d argue there’s at least some justification for it – either publicity, political controversy, or at the very least, current relevance. But to make the name of a retired blogger public because some people make make connections with actual cases if they’re told about it in the Newspapers? Rubbish.
I want an environment where people are free to say what they like. If their employers don’t like it and find out about it, they take the consequences, fair enough. I just can’t see how it’s the job of a newspaper to help those managers find people who might be telling uncomfortable truths about them.
In fact, I reckon it should be the other way round.
June 16, 2009 at 7:03 pm
‘I want an environment where people are free to say what they like. ‘
And to do this you support legal suppression of a newspaper story? This isn’t just ‘is The Times right to publish the story.’ If it were I’d probably say no, since NJ is a good (and retired from blogging) egg, but since they’re probably going to anyway I’m going to take solace in believing that, on the whole, the only people who should be deciding what the job of a newspaper is are the people who work there.
June 16, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I’ve mailed Finkelstein with the following:
Just wanted to express my total dismay at The Times outing Richard Horton – was it done to get The Times in the headlines, as they’ve been losing all the good ones to the DT?
Whatever, it’s an absolute disgrace – the guy wrote anonymously and provided an excellent blog, as witnessed by him winning the Orwell Prize; now he’s been disciplined by Lancs Con, and is being investigated again, just because some nobody at The Times wanted to appear to have cojones.
If your paper has such an interest in transparency, will you now cease to publish unattributed lobby briefings? No, thought not. Hypocrisy at it’s best.
June 17, 2009 at 9:11 am
If you get a reply, please let us know… in the interests of transparency and openness, of course.
June 16, 2009 at 5:17 pm
In the 2006 (Mazher) Mahmood v (George) Galloway case Patrick Foster’s News Intl. colleague asked the High Court to preserve his anonymity by restraining the publication of identifying photographs.
Mahmood’s claim was based ‘first and foremost’ on a right to privacy.
The court refused the injunction. Fair enough. But to have one arm of News Intl. going on about the public interest of protecting information that can be used to I.D. writers, while the other is persecuting them seems slightly odd.
And to give The Times a courtesy I’m sure they themselves wouldn’t extend it’s probably worth pointing out the Mahmood was apparently litigating in a personal capacity.
June 16, 2009 at 5:34 pm
While NJ’s blog was alive I wrote to him to thank him for his articles.
I noted that it was only through people like him that people like me got to know something of the unvarnished truth about conditions in the front line of the public services for which I am compelled to pay increasingly more and which actually deliver increasingly less with every year that passes.
This is a VERY, VERY bad day for whistleblowers and truth-seekers in the UK. NJ and his like are the only protection that ordinary citizens have against the constant lies that emanate from duplicitous politicians at all levels of government and unelected jobsworths in every publicly-funded body.
I’d write again to NJ to express my support if I could but for now I’ll content myself by writing to write to the Times and telling them what a bunch of shits they are.
June 16, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hopi, my email to commentcentral@timesonline.co.uk has been returned as undeliverable ‘5.1.1 – Bad destination email address ‘reject’ ‘
June 16, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Until today, I was also a 5-days-a-week Times buyer.
No longer.
I’m writing to Rupert and James Murdoch about this. Incensed doesn’t quite capture how I feel.
And Mr. Finkelstein can expect to meet the sharp edge of my tongue next time I see him at an Adam Smith bloggers meeting.
June 16, 2009 at 5:44 pm
[...] Hopi proposes an e-mail campaign asking The Times to apologise. I endorse this product and / or service. [...]
June 16, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Hmmm, it’s actually commentcentral@thetimes.co.uk
June 16, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Thanks – my snafu – I went to meeting and noticed my email had bounced too when I got back – have chaged the email address and resent!
Have changed the post to refect reality
June 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I’m rather with the judge on this one. For example the BBC quotes him as saying that blogging is “essentially a public rather than a private activity” which is hard to argue coherently against.
But I know that many people still cling to the romantic notion of the maverick courageously battling against the “system”. Especially if he’s a detective – how else, apart from the location shots, can one explain the enduring appeal of Morse?
And just ‘cos someone’s blogging, it doesn’t follow that he’s telling the “truth” (what is truth btw?).
June 16, 2009 at 6:48 pm
It finally happened. I agreed with something you wrote!
June 16, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Just how much traffic does The Times get from the blogosphere and how much would it suffer if this traffic was withheld?
June 16, 2009 at 7:05 pm
[...] who has this to say and also pointed out comments by, Iain Dale, Obo, Old Holborn, Blue Eyes and Backroom Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)One in 94 million!Blogging wisdomRedecorating [...]
June 16, 2009 at 7:13 pm
[...] the Times cease to quote unnamed sources “close to…”, we can also as Hopi Sen suggests write to the Times to share our opinion of their actions. I am sadly sure, again as Iain Dale [...]
June 16, 2009 at 7:29 pm
CS, As I say, I’m not at all certain Judge was wrong to make his judgement. I know the Times was wrong to want to reveal NJs identity in the first place.
That doesn’t mean I want the power to legally stop them being so stupid – i do want them to understand why this is such a stupid, retrogade, and anti free information move for a newspaper to take. Threaten to expose anonymous bloggers who happen to catch your eye and there goes a significant amount of the desire of people to tell their stories and share information with the rest of us.
Great move.
June 16, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I’m sorry Hopi, but some of your defences do seem to amount to rejecting the result and rationale by rejecting the right of others to make their own decisions on public interest, such as your point about seeking publicity. You’re trying to make this a point of principle when it’s much better defended on the particulars, that it doesn’t benefit the public only in this particular instance, rather than some kind of all-covering chilling effect – as if the various codes of conduct don’t chill enough. You can’t surely claim that you’re happy The Times won the case, can you?
(General thought: I think some people get excited when the blogosphere gets together to defend itself. It gets me a little scared – one second they’re declaring that wikileaks changes everything, the next they’re throwing the Bill of Rights out the window to protect anti-Scientology activists.)
June 16, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Hello Hopi, I respectfully disagree:
It’s nice for people to respect your anonymity, but you shouldn’t have any legal right to it.
Don’t forget, no-one is forced to reveal their identity when they start a blog. It’s not against the law to have an anonymous blog. It’s just that if someone does discover an anonymous blogger’s identity, they should have the same right to disseminate information and comment as the anonymous blogger had.
I’ve put together a few bullet points for my point of view over on my blog: http://www.davidmaclean.eu
Hope you don’t mind the link-whoring!
June 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm
[...] Hopi Sen in his post defending NightJack exposes the inconsistencies in The Times approach, illustrating with the fact that Danny Finkelstein once approached him and others to write anonymously for the newspaper, so just what were they doing in going to court and claiming it was in the public interest? Was it actually necessary to have such a breach in privacy just for a newspaper to bring us a story? [...]
June 16, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I think Eady J, was correct with his judgment. However, I think it was incorrect to decide to hide the identity of judges. Public authority does not equal public interest, therefore this was just covering up official embarrassment.
June 16, 2009 at 8:37 pm
How stupid and depressing of The Times.
How short-sighted too.
We will never know what good writing, and what insight, their approach has denied us. Not only from Nightjack but from others who will undoubtedly stop, or never start, to communicate their own experiences in whatever way as a direct result.
Nightjack’s blog clearly conveyed his deep care and concern for the job he does. His actions (stopping blogging; not collecting the Orwell Prize) demonstrated that he was not motivated by the chance of fame.
We gain absolutely nothing from knowing his real name, and potentially lose a great deal. I really hope his own personal losses are limited to the written warning from Lancashire Constabulary.
For The Times to say that Nightjack “gave tips on beating the police” is akin to criticising Swift for encouraging the eating of babies.
O tempora o mores!
Over and out.
June 16, 2009 at 9:12 pm
[...] An excellent post from Hopi Sen who acknowledges blog anonymity is complex, but is angry about this one. He thinks The Times owes Night Jack an apology – and is calling on others to lobby Daniel Finkelstein, comment editor and chief of the Comment Central blog. [...]
June 16, 2009 at 9:18 pm
A debate sparked on Iain Dale’s blog asking about whether this was in the public’s interest, and my two cents was, of course, no. But actually this will keep happening in the light of the expenses scandals, that is the media’s attempt at undoing the anonymity of those things people keep anonymous.
Unlike many on Dale’s blog, I don’t think this has anything to with so-called “ZaNu-Labour”, but rather it is a rat-race in the print communications to reveal the most shocking revelations.
This, sadly for The Times, will not be some such revelation, but what will be next? Is the Queen a member of the English Democrats in secret (and in spite of the legalities of her joining a political party); is Elvis the eighth pillar of wisdom; did Maggie steal Mr. Whippy ice-cream from someone called Dave Whippy; are the BNP in the employ of Trevor Phillips?
Perhaps the age of revelations will be exciting and fun, but not yet.
June 16, 2009 at 9:34 pm
[...] his superiors and – most disappointly – the deletion of all those brilliant words. The outcry over his outing has been as widespread as the accolades he received in [...]
June 16, 2009 at 9:44 pm
[...] Blog Posts: Hopi Sen – A Blog from the Backroom - he’s [...]
June 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Having thought about it, if The Times have decided that bloggers can no longer remain anonymous we should mail Finkelstein at The Times on his mail addy, not Comment Central mail addy, with our comments.
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.uk
June 16, 2009 at 10:45 pm
You could try emailing Comment Central with criticism, but of course the murdochscum won’t print it. Utter, utter scum.
June 16, 2009 at 11:23 pm
[...] Hopi Sen ponders on the risk of an outed anonymous blogger. [...]
June 17, 2009 at 12:34 am
Well – if the outing of NightJack was because blogging is a ‘public’ action – what about publishing newspapers? Surely the case is the same
So can we now know the names of those ’sources close to the government’ – or the authors of those spectacular scoops that journalist are reputed to defend at all costs?
Because I don’t think they have a leg to stand on now -
June 17, 2009 at 9:38 am
[...] finally Hopi Sen is angry about the Timesexposing the identity of Orwell prize-winning blogger Jack Night. What is it with the Murdoch press [...]
June 17, 2009 at 9:57 am
Have you read the Times self-righteous justification by the way? The paper is so busy crowing about the success of their appeal, they fail to see the wider implications.
Does this mean that in future no whistle blower taking a story to the Times will be guaranteed any anonymity.
I posted a comment to the story on The Times Online earlier today, criticising the Times for wasting time and money outing Night Jack
My critical comment was not published. Nor was anyone else\’s to judge from the comments published. The posters published supported Night Jack but none, apparently, criticised, the Times.
I thought maybe my comment did not get through but I have just read Iain Dale\’s blog and it seems I am not alone in having my comment suppressed.
June 17, 2009 at 10:46 am
\’Does this mean that in future no whistle blower taking a story to the Times will be guaranteed any anonymity. \’
Night Jack wasn\’t promised anonymity by The Times, was he? Defending the anyonymity of your sources doesn\’t entail defending the anonymity of anyone who wants it, especially when you\’ve made no guarantee, nor implied one, to them.
Also, folks, don\’t Streisand Effect the man.
June 17, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Anonymous73
June 16, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Similarly publishing a guide on how frustrate the justice system if you are arrested doesn’t seem compatible with being a detective.
No. And publishing and distributing tens of thousands of credit card sized advice cards, on “how to behave when stopped and searched, or “S.T.U.D” cards, as they were also known, in the 70s and 80s, which were SPECIFICALY, designed to “frustrate the justice system”, and in most cases unlike Jack Night, illegaly, is not compatible with being a politician. But how many of the commy bastards that are in the dictatorship today helped with THAT?
Or is ot one rule for them and another for the Stalinists?
Von Brandenburg-Preußen.
June 17, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I see Danny Finkelstein has replied to your campaign.
http://tinyurl.com/nces4p
June 18, 2009 at 10:52 am
The comments are pretty rare – both opposing the whole thrust of the post and more lucid than the post itself (except for mine, which appears to cut off half way through- i must have pressed send at the wrong time)
June 18, 2009 at 10:03 am
[...] PC Bloggs, Dan Collins, Hopi Sen and you can read old NightJack posts here. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
June 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
Presumably the Times wanted the articles he wrote for the Observer, and was annoyed to miss out so decided to take him down.
I assume, by the way, that the Times will also now start signing its editorials, given the public interest in knowing who’s writing what.
June 18, 2009 at 2:12 pm
[...] An angry rant in favour of his anonymity from the left-wing here. [...]
June 24, 2009 at 2:02 am
[...] andere Kritik am Vorgehen der Times in diesem Fall äußern, z.B. Hopi Sen, ehemaliger anonymer [...]
June 29, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] yang juga mengkritik cara pendekatan The Times pada kasus. Contoh Hopi Sen, dulunya adalah seorang blog [...]
October 8, 2009 at 6:25 am
i have just come across this and i can’t believe i missed out on reading it!
Hopi i do agree.
In Australia, had NJ’s argument been framed in terms of protecting freedom of political speech and debate and encouraging same, rather than based upon a ‘right’ to privacy i am certain the case would have had a fairer outcome.
Furthermore the supposed instructions of how to get away with a crime are mere common sense. at best they are anything you would see on a tv show!
how sad.