Why Publish An Anonymous Rant Against Tourists?

A gratuitous rant against tourists, gentrification and wealth is typical New York Times fare. Why use a pen name?

New Yorkers notoriously like to complain, and they aren’t usually shy about doing so.

So a recent New York Times op-ed piece under the headline “Disney World on the Hudson” didn’t strike me as anything unusual. Though I had never heard of its author, Jeremiah Moss, his column was pretty standard fare for The Times. Moss griped about the growing popularity of the city’s High Line Park, criticized the rich and vilified gentrification.

But when I reached the bottom of the column, I was surprised to discover that “Jeremiah Moss” is a pen name. Moss, who writes the blog “Vanishing New York,” has been profiled in a variety of outlets, including The Village Voice and The New York Observer, but always under his pseudonym.

Why on earth did a reputable outlet for news and views, such as The New York Times, publish Moss’ everyman affectations under a pseudonym? Pen names are for Syrian freedom fighters. They are for political prisoners whose writings are smuggled out of their jail cells. They are for people in the Witness Protection Program. They are not for snide pundits to vent about tourists.

If we want to have a civil discussion of worthwhile topics, and the writer is not risking his or her life or well-being to participate, there is no reason not to require an opinion piece to carry the author’s real name. Writing anonymously is a license to be rude and patronizing, as Moss demonstrated with observations such as “[…] the High Line has already become another stop on the must-see list for out-of-towners, another chapter in the story of New York City’s transformation into Disney World.” The condescension is palpable. Lots of people go to Disney World every year. Are they all stupid? How dare tourists try to enjoy beautiful or unusual parts of the city they visit, Moss’ piece implies.

While writers who use their real names can certainly be nasty as well, they must at least be ready to stand by their words.

It is not a huge surprise that outlets such as The Village Voice or The New York Observer permit a writer to be anonymous for no compelling reason. Thoughtful discussion is not necessarily their main objective. Perhaps that’s also the case at The Times. But The Times at least pays lip service to the importance of writers taking responsibility for what they write. In reply to the FAQ, “Should I use my real name when making a comment?”, it says, “Please fill in the name field with your real name. We have found that people who use their names carry on more engaging, respectful conversations.”

Some newspapers prohibit pen names altogether. The Washington Post will not consider anonymous or pseudonymous op-ed submissions. The Communications Consortium Media Center’s centralized list of requirements for op-eds and letters to the editor shows that many papers ban anonymous letters to the editor, and nearly all of those listed require a name and contact information for op-ed authors. Either The Times knows Moss’ identity and agreed not to share it, or its opinion staff felt there was a compelling reason to allow him to retain his anonymity. Nothing in the article he wrote suggests why.

We ask those who comment on this column at our firm’s website to provide their real names. Absent a compelling reason for anonymity, our moderators will not approve anonymous items for posting. We’re glad to publish replies that disagree with our opinions, but we insist that the replies be civil and attributed to the author.

When a relatively small site like ours requires real names in order to encourage thoughtful discussion, it’s not particularly heartening that New York’s self-proclaimed paper of record won’t do the same. Even YouTube, long derided as the home of some of the lowest-quality comments on the web, is trying to move away from usernames and toward real names, largely in an effort to add accountability to comments on its videos.

There is limited space in The Times’ opinion pages. Back in 2004, David Shipley, the op-ed editor at the time, wrote that “On a day with two columnists and an advertisement, Op-Ed has room for about 1,200 words of type. That’s it.” He added, “Roughly 1,200 unsolicited submissions come to our office every week via e-mail, fax and the United States Postal Service.”

It is a privilege to appear in the section. Authors should respect that privilege and include their real names and, in most cases, the newspaper should require them to do so.

For more articles on financial, business, and other topics, view the Palisades Hudson newsletter, Sentinel, or subscribe to my daily opinion column, Current Commentary.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

gail burlakoff August 28, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Hmmm...pen names...wasn't Mark Twain a pen name? And Elias? And others of that ilk? I never thought of those authors as seeking anonymity...they just had pen names. Guess I equate them more with the names taken by actors, who certainly aren't looking for anonymity :-)
George Datino August 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I just love the irony of this piece on a site that embraces anonymity!
Steve August 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Ben Franklin used at least one pseudonym, and as has been pointed out, so did Samuel Clemens,and a host of others. It's even possible that Shakespeare was a pseudonym. To me, the more important aspect of Mr. Elkin's private war against pseudonyms is: "Why does it matter?" Other than the unfathomable offense it presents to Mr. Elkins, "WHO CARES IF HE USED A PSEUDONYM?". I find nothing offensive or condescending in the High Line references, or anywhere else in the article. The Elkins letter seems anal, mean, defensive, and unnecessary. Mr. Elkins is obviously eloquent and educated, but is also angrily drowning himself in chaff and detritus. I suggest that Mr. Elkins spend time in the sunshine enjoying the flowers of the season, time studying the stars of the night skies, and time being happy that he's alive. In common parlance, "Get a life"! (I'm using a pseudonym, because I think it will be the beginning of much-needed therapy.)
curtis sharp August 28, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Not sure, but trying to read between the lines here and I think larrys real issue that the rich are being attacked by the pen name on a regular basis. It's easy to get angry at the middle class when you are rich and I understand that. But I have the same problem. I am middle class and trying to protect that way of life from being given to poor people for free. Very often, people don't address the real problem rather they present a workaround. If I am right, the writer should try to think, feel and then get results. The other way around won't work. Protect your way of life by making meaningful differences, or the poor people will rise up and change this land forever to a chavez like state. I am left to wonder, why would the writer want to know the pen writers name? How are you going to use that information and/or how will it benefit you. From your blog, it's clear the writer needs protection or someone like you may prevent him from getting a job somewhere because of your opinions. Oh - by the way - thats all they are - opinions. And other people have them too, even if you don't respect them.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »