Pseudonymous

Dear Anonymous REVUE Magazine Writer:

I've long enjoyed the magazine you write for (REVUE). Same goes for your publisher, whom I know just well enough to like quite a bit.

But let's talk about you and your fake name, and your critical op-ed pieces. You write about real things and actual people; but your identity is a fabrication. Your writing is snarky. It's cleverness rubbed raw. It's a crayon drawing of a shaman standing among sheep. It's a series of high-pitched grunts from an adolescent boy shadowboxing in the bathroom. You render your valid arguments meaningless by fabricating your name, which eliminates your credibility and categorically prevents your writing from rising to the level of criticism.

Criticism is a practice that has standards and rules. I'm criticizing you right now. I have a name. And I have credibility because I am an actual person.

As I hope you'd agree, journalistic integrity relies on sourcing, from photo captions to quotes to bylines. Op-ed pieces without attribution take on the appearance of official editorial content. In this sense, your pseudonym creates a dilemma: based on your piece in the August issue, the magazine's official editorial policy begins and ends with snarky comments about a local artist.

I already know this is not REVUE's editorial policy. But this dilemma is unavoidable when publishing anonymous op-ed content: it's got to be a person's voice, or else it's the publication. These are the rules. We know what happens when you break these rules. You get the Mlive.com comments section. You inherit fake names, vitriol, confrontation and the absence of civility. These people have no credibility. Most human beings don't speak that way face-to-face.

And I just don't get it. In your most recent op-ed piece, you took a courageous stand against… err… a middle-aged guy from the NE side who promotes arts/culture in West Michigan. Because apparently you've addressed and solved every other form of oppression in Metro GR, bringing us to the next-most-oppressing-threat: Tommy Allen. Gardener, local writer, businessperson, activist and overall well-known personality.

The title of this August piece is Attention: I am NOT Tommy Allen. As for the title, I could hardly agree more. I know Tommy Allen. Tommy Allen is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Tommy Allen.

Let's consider the target of your op-ed. Decades of progressive community building. Overcoming adversity in the public eye. Advocacy for just causes during risky times. Helping former Grand Rapids Mayor John Logie pass anti-discrimination protections in the early 1990s. Working with a local movement to get Holland to pass the same protections 15 years later. Writing a weekly column that highlights local NPOs, charities, small businesses, artists, customers, citizens, venues and patrons of the arts. Spreading joy through manifest optimism. Embracing what's best - but often quietest - about us. Working with city leaders to promote and innovate the area. Consistently writing a heartfelt, enthusiastic weekly column in Rapid Growth Media. Too much more to enumerate.

So why does it matter that you're no Tommy Allen? The answer is simple: If you could relate to him as a peer, you'd be averse to hurling stones while standing in the shadows. If you were not in the shadows, you'd be averse to hurling stones. People are like that when you see each other's face.

Also worth mentioning: Tommy Allen is perhaps the most prominent out/gay voice in the region. He came out during a difficult era. Meanwhile you keep your true identity in the closet, taking cheap shots with no expectation of repercussions. Kind of unfair. But ethical issues aside, you'd be more effective at throwing turds if you stood outside the closet. You'd be a better pitcher. And you could see your catcher more clearly. It's just more efficient.

And I'm not saying Tommy is beyond reproach. I have issues with him sometimes. Any friend would. All of us are fair game. Criticism is a good thing either way.

But again: your piece did not rise to the level of criticism, because you went after someone anonymously, knowing the ridicule would be published for thousands to see. You broke the rules, from Journalism 101 to the 6th Amendment, the accused has the right* to face the accuser. (*Except in some cases when the accuser is a child.)

I'll acknowledge openly that it became personal, for me, when you went after Tommy. He is a close friend and I'd stand side-by-side with him in the street, knives out. You write for a really great publication and you have amazing reach. I know your publisher has high regard for ethics. It's unfair for you to use your platform to make fun of someone anonymously. It's not right.

To me your August op-ed reads like this: (1) make fun of Tommy; (2) agree with Tommy's conclusion. And none of the ridicule was essential to your conclusion. Which was to agree with Tommy.

Bottom line: If you dehydrated your op-ed to remove the parts where you make fun of Tommy, it would have been short enough to post on Twitter. I just didn't see the point.

My personal objections aside, I think you have a responsibility to the basic rules of the game. These traditions serve a purpose, and the purpose is good. Anonymous commenting is the last refuge of scoundrels. It really is.

Thanks,
Erin Wilson
Grand Rapids, MI