The Blue Alaskan should show its true colors
A tif over anonymous reporting has Alaska politicos atwitter, but there are serious issues of journalistic integrity and accountability related to the question of who is running the anonymous website known as “The Blue Alaskan”.
The Blue Alaskan’s motto is “This isn’t CNN and it definitely isn’t FOX. It’s a blog,” and the upstart citizen journalist running the website seems to believe that word — blog — somehow insulates him or her from having to follow journalistic best practices and ethics in their reporting.
“Unlike news stories that are meant to give the facts only, blogs have the flexibility to include a personal slant or bias,” writes the anonymous author on bluealaskan.com.
This wide-eyed-innocent act is belied by a quick perusal of the website, which is indistinguishable from any other local news website and very much appears to be a serious journalistic endeavor. Make no mistake, despite its claims of being “just a blog,” the Blue Alaskan is clearly trying to edge its way into the crowded Alaska mediascape that includes the likes of the Alaska Landmine, Must Read Alaska, the Alaska Watchman, Midnight Sun Alaska, and others.
The Blue Alaskan seems to believe that by calling oneself a blog an author can strip themselves of accountability and simply write slanted news stories. This is, ironically, a view it shares with one of its key competitors, the far-right Alaska Watchman, whose authors present their version of the news through “a broadly Judeo-Christian” lens.
The key difference between the BA and other outlets reporting their version of slanted news, however, is the shield of anonymity it alone enjoys. Whatever you think of their work, people like Jeff Landfield, Suzanne Downing, Joel Davidson, Dermot Cole and Matt Buxton put their names to their work and can be held publicly accountable. That’s not something you can say of the BA, who is free to write without fear of personal accountability.
Must be nice.
I’ve called for the unmasking of the author in the past on social media, as have others on all sides of the political spectrum. But the issue exploded recently when Landfield — who runs the Alaska Landmine blog — posted a $500 bounty of the Blue Alaskan’s unmasking on Twitter and Facebook. The move drew instant condemnation from the majority of those who commented, including Landfield’s own business partner, Paxson Woelber. Landfield later followed up with a blog post outlining his reasons why the Blue Alaskan should be exposed.
While many people support the Blue Alaskan’s unmasking, asking for a bounty to reveal someone’s identity runs counter to everything ethical journalism stands for and in actuality shows Landfield to be a lazy and incompetent reporter; after all, if he wants to know who the Blue Alaskan is so bad, shouldn’t he just be able to find out for himself? The bounty was poorly thought out and unhelpful and yet another example of why Alaska needs a robust conversation about media ethics and the role — and responsibilities — independent journalists should play in the public sphere.
But I digress.
The person behind the Blue Alaskan account claims to be motivated by altruism, but its website — like those of its competitors — is set up to take “donations” in any amount the giver chooses. Whether its motives are, it’s clear the person behind it is as much or more a political entity as the Save Anchorage group it criticizes.
And it’s not doing it for free. Couched again in aw-shucksism, the BA solicits donations in the form of a “cup of coffee,” and you can almost imagine some plucky self-starter hammering away at the keys for $5 a week.
This “donation” feature brings up one of the main problems with the Blue Alaskan’s anonymity. The site is asking for money and yet nobody giving the cash has any clue where it’s going and to whom it might be benefitting. That means the BA could be anyone from Amy Demboski to Ethan Berkowitz — they could be a politician, a known activist or even a lobbyist — and still able to solicit funding for their pet propaganda project.
The author — who routinely writes not just online but for the print version of the Anchorage Press newspaper — continually claims it doesn’t have to follow normal procedures, then contradicts itself by pointing to its own “scoops.”
“TBA does not weaponize anonymity, as should be evident by pieces I’ve written which have been picked up by the mainstream media — not just Anchorage Press,” the author brags — as if being a literal part of the mainstream media somehow makes it even more imperative that its anonymity be protected.
The Blue Alaskan claims its identity must be shielded due to the danger presented by the members of “Save Anchorage,” a Facebook group the author routinely criticizes. This claim comes despite the fact that there are no known incidents of violence against any local reporters — and there are plenty who might have reason to fear Save Anchorage. Landfield himself routinely trolls and cajoles members of the group, and it was photos taken by the Landmine’s Woelber that helped draw national attention to Save Anchorage members wearing gold Star of David replicas to Anchorage Assembly meetings. Among those who have said mean things or written stories that could be considered offensive by members of “Save Anchorage” group include virtually every journalist or blogger in Alaska not named Joel Davidson.
Threats of violence against journalists shouldn’t be brushed aside; journalists worldwide are routinely killed while reporting on dangerous or controversial stories, and any credible threat should be acted on by the police. That said, Anchorage isn’t Afghanistan or Acapulco, and the idea that the Blue Alaskan would face some special level of wrath smells as much like ego as it does self-preservation.
The author also seems to be confused about standard journalistic practice, claiming newspapers “publish letters to the editor, help columns, and allow the letters to be anonymous or signed with a pseudonym.” This is only partly true; advice columns and food columns are sometimes written under pseudonyms, but virtually all newspapers disallow anonymous letters for many of the same reasons they don’t allow their reporters to remain nameless.
The Blue Alaskan has made its name by identifying and calling out members of this community that it believes are dangerous, and its stories have again and again attempted to heap real consequences on people for their words. Among the stories it has published include a list of Save Anchorage members that includes the names of dozens of Alaskans who are apparently guilty simply due to their membership in the group. Left unsaid is whether the BA itself belongs to the group, but it’s entirely possible — if not probable — that one of the main reasons its author remains anonymous is that they’re a lurker in the group and worried about losing its primary source of material.
The Blue Alaskan casts real stones and yet must face no consequences when it misfires. This happened earlier this year, when overzealous and sloppy reporting led to an erroneous story being published on the blog about Downing, who the Blue Alaskan falsely claimed purchased a home in Florida in 2019. This is the kind of mistake “real” reporters dread because we know we are the ones who must shoulder the correction. Not so for Mr/Mrs Blue Alaskan, who issued a correction but whose personal reputation took no hit whatsoever for publishing lies.
Anonymity in the online sphere and in journalism can be useful and there are many instances when someone’s identity needs to be protected from the public. However, when someone chooses to report on the lives of real people — for money, no less — they themselves should also have to stand for scrutiny of their motivations and ethics. In remaining anonymous, the only interest being served by the Blue Alaskan is their own. There is no benefit to readers or to the people of Alaska if the author remains hidden.
The Blue Alaskan should join the community of brave journalists who put their reputations and personal lives on the line every day in support of the cause they believe in; if they do, I’ll be the first to welcome them with open arms. But to continue publishing anonymously is nothing more than a smoke-screen, and anyone who believes in openness and accountability in media and politics should urge them to either come forward or end publication.
This column is the opinion of Matt Tunseth, a freelance writer and photographer from Alaska who has worked for the Anchorage Press, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, Chugiak-Eagle River Star, Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Dispatch News and the (Kenai) Peninsula Clarion.
