Grog Thoughts

I've deliberately held off writing this post until the fuss has died down so that it doesn't get caught up in the crap flood that followed the initial article.

But first an explanation for those of you just joining us.

During the recent Federal Election, a blogger going by the psuedonym of grogsgamut appeared to lead the charge against the incredibly inane and vacuous media coverage (we're talking earlobes and handbags, who's going to live at the lodge rather than policy dissection and critical analysis). So much so that he was mentioned by Mark Scott, Managing Director of the ABC cited his coverage when talking about the need to change the way the media was covering the election.

Grog gained something of a small following amongst the media/political wonks because of his writings and twitter stream. He engaged, discussed and debated with the journalists on twitter, and while he was critical of the way the media was operating, he appeared to do so in a respectful manner.

Last Monday, James Massola of the Australian decided to "out" grogsgamut in this article. It turns out the grogsgamut is a federal public servant by the name of Greg Jericho.

That sparked a huge tide of protest from amongst the online community. The main accusation being that the outing was revenge for the unflattering commentary that Grog had heaped upon the Australian. Tempers flared and what should have been an informed debate was drowned out by a flood of blind rage.

Once the mindless bile receded (and yes if you threatened physical violence over this, or spewed sewage from your twitstream you are a moron) a more thoughtful debate followed.

My Own Take

Okay here it is, I think the original decision to out Grog was flawed on a number of levels.

The main reason given in the original article appears to be that Grog, as a federal public servant was not allowed to show any signs of partisanship at all in his public writings. This is  false. Public servants are allowed to engage in partisan politics, even to the point of becoming a member of a political party. What they are not allowed to do is to publicly comment on their own department, minister or policies.

A secondary reason implied is that Grog was somehow being fraudulent in his writings.

"The revelation of Mr Jericho's identity is the latest in a string of anonymous authors who have been unmasked, from Belle Du Jour, author of the Diary of a London Call Girl -- who was revealed to be Brooke Magnanti -- through to writer Helen Demidenko, author of The Hand that Signed the Paper, subsequently revealed to be Helen Darville (now Dale) and The Australian's own Christian Kerr, who outed himself as "Hillary Bray" while a contributor to Crikey."

By including Helen Darville in the list of pseudonymis writers he's implying that Grog is somehow false in his writings, that he is pretending to be someone he isn't for financial gain. Essentially, he's calling Grog a fraud.

The only fall back position the Australian appears to have is the "public interest" area. They are claiming that it was obviously in the public interest to out Grog, given the fact that his writings were being quoted by Mark Scott as an example of the reaction towards the election coverage.

The problem of course with this argument is that when Scott quoted Grog, he was using his writings as an example of the building sense of frustration being felt by consumers of media, rather than claiming that Grog was the prime force behind the move to change the way the ABC was reporting the election. For Scott and the ABC, Grog was a placeholder for the rest of us.

Another problem with the "public interest" line is the fact that James Massola knew who Grog was long before he wrote the article. He knew who Grog was when Scott quoted him and didn't out him then, which begs the question, why now?

There is a debate to be had about the rise of the citizen journalist vs the main stream media, the media landscape is changing and change can be scary, especially if it challenges long held beliefs and ivory towers. However the debate can only happen if both sides are willing to treat the other as an equal. Going on the coverage from the Australian (especially last weeks "Capital Circle" broadcast) I don't think they're ready for that level of discussion.