How amusing. The Albany Times Union encourages people to comment anonymously on its stories (no names, no accountability). Then, it’s shocked – shocked! – that people aren’t upfront or even honest when using this device.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=865883

Was someone posting comments favorable to the city while working at city hall? How stunning.

Well, no, not really.

The newspaper’s “Who, me?” attitude is amusing. Feedback used to mean a person signed his name, authorship was verified, libel and meanness were stripped out before publication, and people generally thought, a little, before they spoke. I hope that’s still the case for letters to the editor in print.

Not to single out the Albany Times Union, but under the new-world way in which none of these standards is true, and newspapers get the instant comments and interactivity they seem to crave, why are we surprised by the nonsense surrounding anonymity?

Thanks to NPR’s health blog, among others, for reporting on the latest thoroughly bad idea connected to social media and journalism.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/osteopaths_group_offer_gifts_to_journalists_for_follo.html

The American Osteopathic Association is giving a $10 gift card to those (i.e., journalists) who follow the organization on Twitter.

It’s not for me to comment on the AOA and the line that it crosses (that’s paying for access and attention, no matter how you try to spin it).

But any journalist who goes along with this needs to think a little harder about the relationship. You’re being paid to listen (in a new-world, new-media sense) to a source.

Maybe this doesn’t require additional comment. No journalist would agree to this. Right?