Jump to content

Anonymity in Food Blogging


MRG

Recommended Posts

Geez. All I tried to do was provide a straight forward answer to a question posed here, and right away we're diving back down into a topic that's been deemed inappropriate and unwelcome -- twice, if I'm counting correctly. Don't you two get it? It's neither clever nor cool to 'out' a blogger, especially one who clearly chooses not to name names herself. Can we please drop the subject and move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's neither clever nor cool to 'out' a blogger, especially one who clearly chooses not to name names herself.
I'm sure some people get their kicks "outing" people for whatever reason. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that a blogger deserves some sort of "hands off anonymity." If it's so important for a writer to remain anonymous, write a diary and not a blog on the Internet. Sheesh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More to the point, if you're going to post in a thread where you're affiliated with the restaurant then you reveal that information. Most (all?) of us here are very happy to have people associated with the restaurant posting here as it gives us an insight into the restaurant that we wouldn't neccassarily have. However, if you prefer to remain anonymous, I believe the direction on the board is that you not post about the restaurant you are affiliated with.

In this case in particular it's almost funny to see as after reading the last couple months of her posts (I only starting reading a week or so ago and so needed to catch up) it was fairly immediately obvious who she worked for (based on the timing of the opening, Tom's review, and the GM's leaving).

I understand that Restaurant Gal would want to remain anonymous, or as anonymous as possible considering she's talking about day-to-day events and there are a number of people in this community that could put those events in place with what they know to be going on at the restaurants in the city. Personally, I don't think your posts crossed any sort of line or anything, but it does set a bad precedent for people associated with a restaurant to be posting in their thread without displaying that association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are discussing two separate issues simultaneously: (1) whether a blogger has any "right" to anonymity and (2) whether someone associated with a restaurant should disclose the association when posting in a thread about their restaurant. Whether this requires two separate threads or not, I don't know.

With regard to the former, the answer clearly is "no," but there are lots of other issues to be discussed. The answer to the latter is yes; however, there is no affirmative obligation. But, it displays very poor form to not disclose the affiliation.

[And damn, this reply field is about a yard long]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already a thread about the second question ---> here.
Thanks for your post. I've included Don's 2005 post in its entirety for context.
[several people in the industry have recently asked me if it's okay if they post about their own establishments, and the answer is yes, absolutely. Each restaurant has their own thread (or will soon enough), and it's perfectly appropriate for an owner, manager or chef to come into those threads and discuss things such as policies, new menu items, daily specials, etc. And if you drum up some PR in the process, then good for you. It's important, however, to disclose your professional affiliation, and the most elegant way to do it would be to update your signature file.

Cheers,

Rocks.]

I am confident that Don still feels this way because of his handling of the DrSmoke saga.
On the flipside, it does seem Caulfield mentioned that he was the owner of Chubby's about three hours after his initial post if you look a bit down-thread.
He didn't, Alan. Rocks added it to his signature well after the fact. Original trolling for comments here. Fessing up here, after he got outed, four days later.
Agree with Jacques that bloggers don't have the right to anonymity. In the UNNAMED case here, the poster may be confusing their imagined rights with the Board's previous protective behavior towards someone mentioned in their blog. Telling tales out of school in a public forum, like the internet, about one's employer, staff, customers and investors may be amusing, but not professional behavior...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confident that Don still feels this way

Yes I do. :)

Hypothetical situation posed as devil's advocate: Suppose a member here was "outed" because someone figured out who they were based on their posts.

First of all, I'd ask: What's the point? And more importantly, I believe I'd step in and make sure their privacy was protected - doubly so if they expressed concern to me about it.

Is there a difference between "outing a blogger" and "outing a poster?" I don't see much.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal thoughts are that while bloggers that prefer to remain anonymous do not have a right to remain anonymous it's poor form to out them. I certainly would not go out of my way to out an anonymous blogger. However, when that blogger, or someone associated with that blogger, then posts in a thread about their restaurant (which requires them to not remain anonymous) then those two requirements are at odds. The easiest/best solution is to either not remain anonymous, or if you're going to remain anonymous don't post in your restaurant's thread. You can't have it both ways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On JG's issue 1, a blogger has no right to anonymity, but he/she may have a reason to desire it. Any one of us has the right to expose that blogger, but as long as nobody's getting hurt and nobody's taking advantage of anybody, none of us has a reason to do it. There's no upside, there may be a downside from the blogger's perspective, and at the very least there are hurt feelings. So why do it?

Or more simply, why not simply be nice and respect RG's wishes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On JG's issue 1, a blogger has no right to anonymity, but he/she may have a reason to desire it. Any one of us has the right to expose that blogger, but as long as nobody's getting hurt and nobody's taking advantage of anybody, none of us has a reason to do it. There's no upside, there may be a downside from the blogger's perspective, and at the very least there are hurt feelings. So why do it?

Or more simply, why not simply be nice and respect RG's wishes?

Despite the general civility of DR, the web is a jungle. It's a knife fight. It is a state of virtual nature. It's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

That's the beauty of it, why it's valuable. Also, why it's dangerous and infuriating.

As polite, respectful or uninterested as most readers may be, any blogger who posts anything personal and gets any readership -- especially in a playpen the size of the dc food "on-line community" -- and thinks they are going to remain anonymous is fooling themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the general civility of DR, the web is a jungle. It's a knife fight. It is a state of virtual nature. It's got no signs or dividing lines and very few rules to guide.

That's the beauty of it, why it's valuable. Also, why it's dangerous and infuriating.

As polite, respectful or uninterested as most readers may be, any blogger who posts anything personal and gets any readership -- especially in a playpen the size of the dc food "on-line community" -- and thinks they are going to remain anonymous is fooling themselves.

I see people who are fooling themselves in some aspect of their lives every single day. I see no reason to burst their bubbles. They're not hurting anybody, so I leave them alone. And on the rare occasion when I think it's to their benefit to know that they're not fooling anyone other than themselves, I have approached them quietly and told them so, rather than loudly exposing their "secret".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see people who are fooling themselves in some aspect of their lives every single day. I see no reason to burst their bubbles. They're not hurting anybody, so I leave them alone. And on the rare occasion when I think it's to their benefit to know that they're not fooling anyone other than themselves, I have approached them quietly and told them so, rather than loudly exposing their "secret".

I'm not advocating outing anyone. I'm just saying don't whine when you are, 'cause it's going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if what you're posting is unprofessional, and you aren't sufficiently vague about where you work, you'd better hope to keep fooling your employer.

I see no reason to out a blogger. I mean, really, what's the point? But, shilling your place of employment on someone else's site isn't cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, just ask Jessica Cutler!
At least she got a book deal. :)

Seriously, dissing your boss, the investors in your company, and your clients online is risky, regardless of one's chosen field. At the risk of being nasty, most bloggers just really really want to see themselves in print (the internet version of liking to hear yourself talk) and don't take that into account. That said, unless you suspect that you employ the blogger you're reading, or you are being caused emotional harm (like Ms. Washingtonienne's client), their identity is really none of your business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least she got a book deal. :)

Seriously, dissing your boss, the investors in your company, and your clients online is risky, regardless of one's chosen field. At the risk of being nasty, most bloggers just really really want to see themselves in print (the internet version of liking to hear yourself talk) and don't take that into account. That said, unless you suspect that you employ the blogger you're reading, or you are being caused emotional harm (like Ms. Washingtonienne's client), their identity is really none of your business.

To me anyone who would possibly complain about "outing" or even call it outing is ridiculous. Its like going to Seaworld sitting in the taped off front row beecause you want a better view but bitching when you get wet. There were multiple warnings on the PA, signs posted on the row all telling you you might get splashed. You think to yourself, "Oh it might not hit this area this time around let's go for it". You know the risk, but you went ahead with it anyway.

The internet is a public place. You should have the same expectations of privacy for ANYTHING you say, regardless of content, as you would if you stood on your chair in a restaurant, clinked your glass, and made an announcement. You know there is always a risk in someone knowing who you are yet you still were willing to take your chances and bitch about your boss, work etc. People whine about someone outing them when they should be asking themselves why it is so important to have your feelings and things you want to remain private up in a public forum anyways.

A few of us had a discussion at work back during Foley-gate about how there seems to be an internet generational gap growing. A lot of people from 35-40 and above still don't truly grasp the nature of the internet and how insecure they actually are. Foley hit delete and thought that was the end of that. You see time and time again where people get nailed because of a false sense of security. (how many "inner office" emails have made their way to the pages of Roll Call because some Senator thought putting in the recycle bin meant it had disappeared forever?) I can't tell you how many times I have gotten emails from older colleagues who don't realize when forwarding or replying that things are quoted below their email. (One of my colleagues was actually knocked out of the closet to the rest of our team by this about a month ago!) I feel bad and I know there are plenty of exceptions but I feel like a lot of people who didn't grow up using the internet just don't fully understand their exposure when using it. Which is why you still see corporate and government scandals starting from some e-mail/internet mishap. I always ask myself "How could they be so STUPID????" But then I realize i have been using the internet since I was 8 so it isn't exactly fair to say they are stupid, some older people just don't have the same experience with it that I do.

On the flip side I think a lot of the younger generation has begun to evolve too far in the other direction and relish the lack of privacy. Embarassing pictures every detail of their life, every thought is all documented shamelessly for all friends, family, and potential employers to see.... and they don't bat an eye. I just look at my 19 year old sister (someone who post mood changes and pictures of her breaking various laws on Facebook for all to see) as proof of this. I think if I told her about this story not only would she not see why it is a big deal to "out" someone, I don't even think she would understand why this was an issue. I mean it is the INTERNET for god's sakes.

So basic rule of thumb if you have a picture, thought gripe, etc. that you woulnd't be comfortable standing up and announcing at a staff meeting or posting on fliers all over DC, don't post it on the internet. I think narcissism is fine as long as you can deal with the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a blogger, I wanted to add my two cents. When I first started to blog, I didn't want to put my name out there. For one thing, I felt I could write more freely without having to fret over what my friends and family were going to think of my posts. Not that I was writing anything trashy, I just needed a little anonymity at first to find my footing. Yes, I used a fake name at first, in fact it's the same one I use here. After a while, when I finally told my family and a few close friends about my blog, and they all liked it, and I was more comfortable with my writing, I added my real first name to the blog. But that's as far as I wanted to go. Why? There are too many nutjobs out there. And if someone REALLY wanted to find out who I was, they could so why make it that much easier for them by providing my last name.

Most of the food bloggers I read are good people, some use their real names, some don't. It doesn't make a rats-ass difference to me. The only times it would bother me is when someone is writing awful, nasty things about someone else. That's just chicken shit.

I can also understand some of the frustrations of those here who feel that if someone writes on DR or in a blog and is associated with the restaurant world, they should at least say so and at least use their first name. If what they write is shameful to them, then they shouldn't be writing it in a public forum. But if they are just commenting or leaving remarks as a person not as a chef, bartender, waiter, etc. then let them. They're people too. It's when they cross the line between their personal and professional lives that they need to be upfront.

And as for my real name, it's Barbara. I decided to use my blog moniker here because there was already a Barbara on the boards.

(I think that was more than two-cents worth but who's counting.) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a blogger, I wanted to add my two cents. When I first started to blog, I didn't want to put my name out there. For one thing, I felt I could write more freely without having to fret over what my friends and family were going to think of my posts. Not that I was writing anything trashy, I just needed a little anonymity at first to find my footing. Yes, I used a fake name at first, in fact it's the same one I use here. After a while, when I finally told my family and a few close friends about my blog, and they all liked it, and I was more comfortable with my writing, I added my real first name to the blog. But that's as far as I wanted to go. Why? There are too many nutjobs out there. And if someone REALLY wanted to find out who I was, they could so why make it that much easier for them by providing my last name.

Most of the food bloggers I read are good people, some use their real names, some don't. It doesn't make a rats-ass difference to me. The only times it would bother me is when someone is writing awful, nasty things about someone else. That's just chicken shit.

I can also understand some of the frustrations of those here who feel that if someone writes on DR or in a blog and is associated with the restaurant world, they should at least say so and at least use their first name. If what they write is shameful to them, then they shouldn't be writing it in a public forum. But if they are just commenting or leaving remarks as a person not as a chef, bartender, waiter, etc. then let them. They're people too. It's when they cross the line between their personal and professional lives that they need to be upfront.

And as for my real name, it's Barbara. I decided to use my blog moniker here because there was already a Barbara on the boards.

(I think that was more than two-cents worth but who's counting.) :)

Bloggers have the right to post whatever they wish and so do respondents. All are subject to public scrutiny and have no choice but to accept the consequences of their own actions. There really is no reason to debate whether bloggers should or should not be outed; the fact is they run that risk whether they like it or not. The only person who has any control over the protection of a blogger's anonymity is the blogger himself. When a person blogs about his workplace and coyly releases information sufficient enough for readers to ascertain his identity, then so be it. The fault, dearly brutal, lies in himself.

Moreover, a person who blogs about his workplace without previously giving his employer editorial approval must accept the fact that his behavior may be actionable. A restaurateur's livlihood depends on the good will of the public. One way to gain and retain that good will is to provide an environment that respects the privacy of his guests. That requires the strict enforcement of a policy forbidding employees from gossiping about the clientele, especially publicly.

I looked at Restaurant Gal's blog. I did not find her characterization of "lady lunchers" funny; I found it snarky and offensive. I daresay those ladies would agree and would think twice before returning to that establishment, as I now will. I think the chef/owner should seriously consider RG's promulgations and do what is necessary to safeguard his, and his business's reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no reason to out a blogger. I mean, really, what's the point? But, shilling your place of employment on someone else's site isn't cool.
I meant to say, shilling your place of employment anonymously on some else's site.

Seems Restaurant Gal has declared victory, and her chorus seems to be urging her on. But I agree with David that "A restaurateur's livlihood depends on the good will of the public. One way to gain and retain that good will is to provide an environment that respects the privacy of his guests. That requires the strict enforcement of a policy forbidding employees from gossiping about the clientele, especially publicly." The Lady Lunchers post crosses that line. They would recognize themselves if they read it, and most likely not be happy with the story. And it affects my decision to give them my business - no way would I want to screw up somehow and wind up a story on that blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more than likely included in this "Captain Obvious" group. Whatever. I do love it though when people put up only one side of a story. That's cool. I'd post the other side on her blog but I'd be afraid of being outed as "Captain Obvious". I can't stand an outing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to say, shilling your place of employment anonymously on some else's site.

Seems Restaurant Gal has declared victory, and her chorus seems to be urging her on. But I agree with David that "A restaurateur's livlihood depends on the good will of the public. One way to gain and retain that good will is to provide an environment that respects the privacy of his guests. That requires the strict enforcement of a policy forbidding employees from gossiping about the clientele, especially publicly." The Lady Lunchers post crosses that line. They would recognize themselves if they read it, and most likely not be happy with the story. And it affects my decision to give them my business - no way would I want to screw up somehow and wind up a story on that blog.

I just read RG's posting deriding Captain Obvious, in which she states: "Out a blogger... and you could cause them to be fired. Yeah, you are messing with real people, and real people’s jobs." She seems not to care that she is messing with her co-workers's (and her employer's) jobs by gossiping about customers. You see, her mission is much greater: to allow readers worldwide to seek out her prose and learn of "life’s lessons, life’s trials, life’s sheer bliss." Restaurant Gal, you are a star! Since you prefer to remain anonymous, how about a pseudonym? Eve Harrington, perhaps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, c'mon. Who's going to bell the cat and actually post a negative response on the blog?

(Or, as someone suggested, head down to the joint and see if they can rate an entry?)

I finally bit the bullet and posted on her blog, or at least tried to. I've tried to post at least 5 times now, but each time a "page cannot be displayed" error comes up... I've now given up posting on the blog but maybe I'll try again later today. I copied off my response so it least I don't have to retype it every time.

I really enjoy reading her blog (as I also really enjoy reading waiter's waiterrant blog). However, this incident has definitely left a sour taste in my mouth. As I posted on her blog, a number of us could easily figure out where she worked. I figured it out and didn't care one bit. I thought the stories were interesting and a good read. However, having her (or her husband, still haven't figured out if MRG stands for Mr. Restaurant Gal, or what) posting in the thread playing up the restaurant just isn't kosher. You can't have it both ways. You can't be both an anonymous blogger as well as playing up the restaurant that you work at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, having her (or her husband, still haven't figured out if MRG stands for Mr. Restaurant Gal, or what) posting in the thread playing up the restaurant just isn't kosher. You can't have it both ways. You can't be both an anonymous blogger as well as playing up the restaurant that you work at.

I disagree. Yes, of course MRG should have disclosed his/her connection to the restaurant (although it seems to me on rereading the post in question that such a connection was implied, though not stated). But he (let's assume it's Mr. RG) could easily have said "I'm married to an assistant manager of this restaurant" and would have provided all the disclosure necessary, without needing to mention that "oh, by the way, that assistant manager also happens to write a blog under the name Restaurant Gal."

The link to the restaurant is relevant. The blog isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But agm, his name is Mr. RG! I had no clue who he was but as soon as I saw his screenname (MRG) I knew exactly who it was. All anyone asked him to do is be honest about the fact that he is married to someone that worked at the restaurant. You just can't have it both ways. If you want to post in your "anonymous blogger" guise, you can't post in the resturant's thread you work in because people will now. If you want to post in your thread, have a different name. If he had come into the thread as MrSmith (or whatever, I have no idea as to the actual name of Restaurant Gal and don't particularly care) with a signature or whatever saying his wife was an AGM at the restaurant not one person would have cared, and not one person would have known that he was associated with Restaurant Gal (other than the people that had already figured it out, and there's not much you can do about that).

But you can't go an make a name here based on your "anonymous" blog name, then post on your restaurant's thread, and expect people to not pick up on it immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can't go an make a name here based on your "anonymous" blog name, then post on your restaurant's thread, and expect people to not pick up on it immediately.
I have to agree with that. The blog is a separate issue from this board until someone uses a name that invokes the blog to talk about the restaurant on this board and refuses, upon inquiry, to disclose his/her affiliation. Even saying there is no affiliation would have answered the question.

The blog and this board were separate issues until that point.

I read a few restaurant blogs, and I've always thought that waiter, with his emphasis on the allegorical, must be using poetic license to change details to tell his story. That strikes me as smart, whereas giving very specific details that can be tracked seems inadvisable. If I were someone who liked to pray in a restaurant before a meal--whether one of those ladies or not--I would be horribly offended by that blog entry. If there is a fraction of a % of a chance that you can be identified from your description of your job on a blog, it behooves the writer to be very careful to minimize identifying details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But agm, his name is Mr. RG! I had no clue who he was but as soon as I saw his screenname (MRG) I knew exactly who it was. All anyone asked him to do is be honest about the fact that he is married to someone that worked at the restaurant.

Yes, that's exactly what should be asked of him. I believe I did say that. But that's not what you've been arguing:

You just can't have it both ways. If you want to post in your "anonymous blogger" guise, you can't post in the resturant's thread you work in because people will now. If you want to post in your thread, have a different name. If he had come into the thread as MrSmith (or whatever, I have no idea as to the actual name of Restaurant Gal and don't particularly care) with a signature or whatever saying his wife was an AGM at the restaurant not one person would have cared, and not one person would have known that he was associated with Restaurant Gal (other than the people that had already figured it out, and there's not much you can do about that).

But you can't go an make a name here based on your "anonymous" blog name, then post on your restaurant's thread, and expect people to not pick up on it immediately.

So the issue is now his screen name. Sorry, that just doesn't compute either.

If you know who Restaurant Gal is, and know where she works, then reading a post in a thread about that restaurant, you might reasonably be expected to figure out what MRG means. So yeah, that could be considered making a name for oneself based on the blog - but only among those who know the "secret".

If you don't know who Restaurant Gal is, and where she works, then "MRG" has no meaning, conveys no information, and does not in any way trade upon the blog or its author's pseudonym.

To those for whom MRG would have any meaning whatsoever, simply using that name would by itself constitute disclosure: Here I am, I'm Mr. RG, you know who my wife is. To the rest, it's just another screen name, invoking nothing.

Which once again makes the identity of Restaurant Gal something that could easily have been kept quiet and entirely out of the conversation.

Disclosure of the relationship to the restaurant remains the only valid issue, as we've all agreed. The blog is relevant (well, was) only to those who already know. Who still, in my opinion, as stated previously, had every right to disclose that information, but no reason to do so.

OK, I've said enough, I'm done with this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along those lines then, those that knew what his name meant and the linking it implied, to those people they already knew the connection and, as you say, no further association was really needed. It would be like if Michael Landrum's name on the board was RTS or RTC, or if Jamie Stachowski's name was Kolumbia, there would really be no point in further disclosure.

However, to the people that had no idea what the RG blog was, to those people MRG's post was disingenuous as they had no way of knowing that he was talking about a restaurant that he himself was associated with (through his wife). Personally, I'd probably wouldn't have said anything about the post and whatnot. In fact I did see the post prior to crackers' post in the thread and didn't mention anything because I just didn't particularly see the need to as it wasn't really that over the top. However, the righteous indignation over someone asking someone that's associated with a restaurant to state so in the thread about that restaurant is really what upset me.

RG has stated that the conversation that I and her husband was having on her blog is over, so I guess the situation is at an end. I truly value those inside the industry that come and post here, particularly those that post about their own restaurant as I feel it really let's us know what's going on that we should try and check out. My only beef is that I do wish that people would be forthright when doing so, which I think most of us would agree with, regardless of whether or not we think this specific situation was handled well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That so many posts have been made on such a benign topic is remarkable. Bravo!, the spirit of McCarthyism lives on. Anonymity eliminates reader’s bias. Some peoples have been known to vote anonymously as well, which ensures against reprisals. Where will the witch-hunt hearings to blacklist anonymous posters from this digital cork-board be held?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That so many posts have been made on such a benign topic is remarkable. Bravo!, the spirit of McCarthyism lives on. Anonymity eliminates reader’s bias. Some peoples have been known to vote anonymously as well, which ensures against reprisals. Where will the witch-hunt hearings to blacklist anonymous posters from this digital cork-board be held?
People being threatened with JAIL for not turning in their friends, or having their lives ruined by fake/nonexistent evidence, is McCarthyism. This? Someone posting an 'anonymous' blog where any sentient being can figure out who they are and where they work, etc., etc., and then complains when she's found out? She's being either naive or disingenuous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where will the witch-hunt hearings to blacklist anonymous posters from this digital cork-board be held?
There's no vendetta against anonymous posting on this board, so you can come down off the ledge now PF. There were two points made:

1. Blogging about your place of employment is risky, especially when you disparage your customers, boss, coworkers, or investors.

2. Shilling your place of employment on a board like this, without disclosing your affiliation, is cheesy and Don frowns on it.

That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Blogging about your place of employment is risky, especially when you disparage your customers, boss, coworkers, or investors.
Not only is it risky, but it's the only rule in blogging: Don't blog about your work unless you want to risk losing your job! End of story. It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where Restaurant Gal works, so she kinda shat (is that a word) the bed in terms of keeping her identity and the identity of her employer a secret.

Posting on a messageboard is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...