I recently outed someone who commented on Red Alert on an issue they were very close to but used a pseudonym. Admin thought it was unusual. Clare told me she wanted to talk about it. Grant was more direct. I was admonished.
But now an interesting issue has arisen.
Ministerial staffers are commenting on Red Alert from the Beehive - during normal working hours – using pseudonyms.
We have always known they monitor our blog. Several Ministers read it daily as well.
But is it really part of their job to comment? And if it is should they be transparent as we are when we post here and comment on other blogs.
And if they aren’t should we out them?
Interesting issue – causing debate in our team. We would welcome your views.
I gather that state employees are sworn not to comment on their own ministries – cannot imagine what would happen to a lowly ACC/IRD/ or WINZ staffer who went public (anonymously) on something they felt about their department. And imagine the public outcry if a teacher was found to be blogging instead of teaching. The more thought one gives to this the more it seems they should be outed …
There are several different issues here, so I’ll deal with them in order of ease.
“But is it really part of their job to comment?”
No, it isn’t and my view is that they should be up front about who they are. Whilst I don’t give my full name or address with each post (and frankly, any fool can create any email address), I would still own up to my posts. Again, its a spin issue (and reminds me of a UK Labour mishap when party workers all went online to skew a web poll (still, not as bad a pager-gate one conference).
“We have always known they monitor our blog. Several Ministers read it daily as well.”
Information is power, and by openly discussing our issues here, are we possibly handing our opponents a great source of info on how to counter our arguments in the house and in the media? I love this thing, but I have worries about it and potential damage it can do: it’s a sub-domain of the party sight, will people look at it and think it represents party opinion? Are there rules on MP’s commenting on areas out with their portfolios and letting those MP’s who hold that portfolio have sight of their posts first? I think as a political organisation, if you know the enemy are watching you (even tampering at the edges) you need to be very careful on what you say.
As for outing these individuals, well that’s a tricky one. I wouldn’t do it here, but perhaps requesting the internet records of Beehive computers would be a better route. I suppose I am saying that you guys opened the can of worms with Red Alert, keep to its principles, but use the process if you want to highlight the “gerrymandering” (possibly too strong, but you know what I mean)!
Of course you should Trevor. But be careful. Thats a double edged sword….
I’m going to email my response.
if they supply info that is private and confidential that they know about because of their job then ask yourself .. no. (where would it end .. trust in employment is vital).
if they comment on something that is not .. then go for it.
we all know you know who we are regardless of what name we use eh?
Don’t bother. Just do your job and leave the mud-throwing to the anonymous cowards of The Standard.
No of course you shouldn’t.
Once again you are playing the people and avoiding the issues.
That is how it is perceived in the 21st century. I know you disagree Trev. but in your case you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Todays generation do not want dirty politics!
This is the age of communication and not matter where one is employed blogging is a part of life today. When a person reads a blog and is compelled to comment (that is the intent
of the blog) why should one not be able to do it with the assurance of anomity. It is extremely unjust to give anomity to some and not others.
The solution is to only post comments with peoples real name, which would probably kill the blog.
It is not dirty politics for Trev to be concerned about this. Of course he should be bringing this up he wants our opinions on this, how is that dirty? I do agree that making us use our real names would kill the blog.
Like Spud, I don’t feel it constitutes “dirty politics” to shine a light on those seeking to subvert a blog for their own (employers) aims (how is this that different from the florist in Napier who changed her oppositions Google Maps entries – well ok, its a lot different, but anyway…)
The question for me is twofold. First, is it right and moral? Second, is it productive and will it get us votes? Whilst I think it may be right, I doubt it is productive, so I would stay clear and think of other more ingenious ways to combat this issue.
@abbaj – LOL
That’s a good one 
Why Spud? I use my real name. Most newspapers will now not accept noms de plume. Why should a blog be any different? What is there to hide from? If you have an honestly held opinion, why not express it. I actually enjoy some of the comment and repartee on this blog, even though I don’t support the host political party. Atually I was happy to discover that Maryan S has a sense of humour! She has always looked slightly scary on TV, when in the House.
Spud
Again you have misread what I said.
I’m with Richard on this one. I’d not considered using a non-de-plum, figured if I didn’t have the balls to stand behind my opinions, what’s the point?
Wow, Ok, that comes across as self-righteous LOL, sorry, hope you get the drift? I guess if you’re posting stuff on here that you know will get you in strife, then perhaps you should think carefully about doing it? Sure, everyone’s entitled to an opinion and expressing it, but maybe it’s a personal responsibility thing?
@Rich – Because I wouldn’t feel free to say exactly what I think if I had my own name. I don’t tend to walk down the street telling all in sundry what I think about everything or who I support politically. If I blogged this under my own name then it’s like taking out an ad of all my opinions, creepy. I hope this answers it for you.
I too enjoy this blog.
I think parliamentary staff should disclose they are staff. Not necessarily their full identity, but that they are currently working in Parliament.
I know of a few staff who comment on blogs. Generally they were doing so before their current jobs. But now they work in Prlt, transparency is useful. Again need not be that they name themselves but do what Frog does for the Greens – we all know Frog is a parliamentary staffer, so read his or her comments in that context.
I wouldn’t get fixated about the fact comments are made in so called work hours. This doesn’t mean they are “commenting as part of their job”. Most prlt staff work massive more hours than 40 a week. I commented about politics in online newsgroups and blogs for eight years in Prlt, and think it is good staff interact. However I did always do so under my own name.
Unless there was gross hypocrisy involved, I would not name any staffers. I would just warn them you may do so in future.
On Kiwiblog I reserve the right to release IP information etc but have only done so in situations to help the Police. Amongst the 5,000 or so registered commenters are many civil servants, parl staff, MP spouses, MP children, some prominent lawyers and quite a few high profile NZers. I think the online community would be worse off without their involvement and again would only out someone if there was gross hypocrisy (or illegality) involved.
One of the real strengths of Red Alert is the degree to which both the posters and the commenters are prepared to engage. It is a credit to those MPs who take the time to read through comments on their posts and respond. It is also I think a credit to your moderation policy, focused as it is on keeping the debate on issue, rather than just on side.
While I can appreciate the frustration that must be associated with comments coming from the Executive Wing, I have concerns that talk of outing staffers represents an unfortunately draconian evolution in your moderation policy. If Beehive posts are on-topic and seek to engage genuinely then outing the poster has the potential to look like stifling dissent rather than addressing issues. Where a Beehive poster is being dishonest or mischievous, I think there may be more justification for a moderation note pointing out that the post originated from the Beehive, but I would strongly oppose anything more specific about the origin.
A lot of Red Alert’s credibility lies in how it deals openly with ideas and particularly with opposing views. I think it was a good idea to put this issue on the table before jumping one way or another. I hop you think really hard about the principles in play, before making any significant change to your moderation policy.
If they are using the blog to attack the labour party or its MPs , consistently in the vein of Tim Ellis, then it would be Yes.
I think that at the very minimum parliamentary staff should disclose that they are wearing a particular ‘hat’ while making the comment – i.e. working in a Ministers office or for a Ministry, and should use their names when wearing that ‘hat’. The comments can be read in that particular context.
This distinguishes their comments from those made by them when, as is their right, they make comments in the capacity as a private citizen. If they specify that they are wearing the ‘private citizen hat’ when making comments then those comments can be read in that context.
The internet has blurred all sorts of lines, but I think one way of restoring some lines is to specify what ‘hat’ you are wearing, or what ‘role’ you are playing when making comments.
Interesting to look at last month’s circular issued by the Australian Public Service Commission “encouraging robust professional conversations online” by Public Service employees, giving substance to discussion in the draft Taskforce Report on Government 2.0.
anyone who thinks young people nowadays (whatever that means) hate “dirty politics” can’t be reading many blogs or listening to much talkback etc. And when did transparency and openness become dirty?
This is a tough one, But I don’t think that it’s necessary to disclose the persons name as it may get them in trouble but if you know it’s from parliment then maybe put a note or a star next to their comment so we can understand the context. Most people who post on this blog indicate in one way or another what party they support or which way their vote swings, this allows readers to fully understand the context of their comment. The same should apply for people who post here and work for a minster/ministry. Naming and shaming is not required.
I say out them if they are trolling or deliberately trying to take the message off course. If they are just wanting to express their opinion then they should be able to do so anonymously so it does not interfere with their work.
No, of course you shouldn’t. If the commenter decides to use an alias, that’s their choice. It’s not really appropriate for you to decide otherwise. Where does it end? Disclosing the names of teachers, Police officers, doctors? It’s the thin end of the wedge, surely you must see that? Either you insist on real names – for every one – or you permit the use of aliases. That is your choice. Any more than that would be an injustice.
By the way, it’s pseudonym. I recall you pointing the borax at Tolley for sloppy English. I am not defending her – because she does come across as spectacularly impaired – but such an egregious misspelling does not exactly give you the high ground.
BTW: I have nothing to do with Parliament, the Executive or government…so, this issue does not affect me personally. It’s the principle.
Dorothy
You are obviously refering to the standard of the blogs on The Standard. You would be naive to accept that behaviour as normal.
As to talkback, how can robust discussion take place when all hosts live in fear of the defamation laws? Maybe there is a talkback station I have not heard of.
@UO one day I will remember to push the right buttons after making corrections. It was correctly spelt on autosave but not updated on publish. Thanks for the correction.
Yeah, I think anonymity is a good thing if you want people to be open.
Unpleasant says ..”it’s not really appropriate for you to decide otherwise”
Hello !! Its a labour party funded outlet. Its not a free for all, especially for our political opponents- let them use their state funded jobs on running the country.
I would be surprised if the National party wouldnt be devoting some time and effort to undermining this blog. Remember to they have the so called ‘research unit’ which operates outside Parliament precinct( so may not have a govt IP address) and goes for dirty tricks. As one of its original employees DPF has recalled early in his blog, one of their tricks led to his arrest.
If its good for the Goose….
I use a psuedonym as I don’t want my real identity (or is that my secret identity) to overshadow what I say. I don’t work for an MP, or a party. I just don’t think disclosing my real identity on this blog is wise.
I think some self-regulation is important from commenters. If you wouldn’t be happy being outed as the author of a comment, then don’t post it. Go have a cup of tea, and then modify it.
Trevor, my view as a non staffer and private citizen is that folks should be free to enjoy the blogisphere anonymously, if they choose. It’s irrelevant, to my mind, who someone expressing a view on this blog works for. It’s a view, and they are entitled to express it. Others may agree, or disagree. It’s called freedom of expression. Perhaps some people struggle with that notion, but I’m cool with it, provided it causes no harm to individuals. In fact, I feel the pseudonym thing adds to the colour and enjoyment and humour of the blog. Cultural revolution style “outing” by people with power of people they don’t like or agree with kind of frightens me.
I am intrigued by this post and I really think that it’s good for the admin team to take it to the users.
I didn’t like that Charles Chauvel posted the facebook page of two staffers, one ministerial and one party head-of-research. I didn’t post my view on this blog at the time, opting instead to email Charles as I didn’t see why others needed to know my thoughts on it. Later I noted that he had explained his thoughts on why he considered it appropriate to post this information – I respected his considerations, and I respect that the admin team are putting further consideration into this as a broader idea.
My view remains, however, that I don’t think it’s necessary to go after staff. I think that generally the rule should be the politicians only.
I understand the dilemma that staff are posting from the Beehive under pseudonyms, and perhaps this post acts as a warning to those posters, but I consider that Ministers and government members of parliament are the appropriate targets – not their staff.
On the flipside I would not like to see Labour staffers expected to operate at a similar level of accountability as Ministers.
gww – not quite Labour Party funded – funded by MPs better way of putting it. Important apparently for legal reasons.
Okay, I think I’ll have to revise my position on this. You should only out the staffer if they make some outrageous and ridiculus comment only posted to rile people up. If however a minister posted they themselves should say that they are a minister or you should make sure that we know.
It would be interesting to know who is posting on this blog from across the House. So long as it was done to provide context and not to start a witchhunt. That could be slippery.
While I use a pseudonym I consider it less anonymous than my ‘fleshbotnym’. I have no doubt that if anyone tried to trace me it would not be difficult. I am not one of the biggest traffickers of commentary on this blog.
Some good discussion on this topic
I agree they should not be outed in a personal identity sense, but where they are pushing the spin on behalf of the likes of that woman Tolley it may be reasonable for the rest of us to be aware of their origin in the beehive!
I broadly agree with Sufi Safari: “A lot of Red Alert’s credibility lies in how it deals openly with ideas and particularly with opposing views,” and any move that might compromise this should be avoided where possible. A note pointing out that a post originated from the beehive, where applicable, would alert readers to possible agendas, without resorting to a sledge hammer for cracking a walnut.
Personally I think that if any parliamentary staff comment, they should disclose the fact that they are parliamentary staff, and perhaps what type of position they hold. It is probably not necessary to use real names (although welcome).
How about a thread on here for people who regularly comment to introduce/tell us about themselves?
If their comments are mischievous or insulting, out the creeps. If their comments are constructive or thoughtful, do not.
@Shane – I personally want to stay private.
In a perfect political world the answer is… they shouldn’t be outed. But it ain’t a perfect political world. In other words, each individual case has to be judged on it’s merit. If a “ministerial staffer” is trolling, hijacking threads or generally indulging in mischief… then out them! If not,
then treat them with the same courtesy as the rest of us. Pretty simple really.
@Gnat – “I use a psuedonym as I don’t want my real identity (or is that my secret identity) to overshadow what I say. I don’t work for an MP, or a party. I just don’t think disclosing my real identity on this blog is wise.”
Ditto.
As for staffers – well, I think this depends on a few things. If its a minister – too right they should be outed and in fact, they should own up and be transparent. I doubt tho that MPs like our ‘friend’ Tolley would front up – BUT, I would not put it past her to ‘encourage’ a staffer to write some kind of dribble. In that case, I would see this as trolling and I would like to know that I am commenting against a staffer. If they are commenting in their own time from thier pov, outing them is unfair.
I have found this post quite interesting – and I agree with the posters who have said some of the public are sick of the ‘dirty’ tactics. I personally do not think politics should be played dirty – its childish and unprofessional. Perhaps its time the ‘old boy and old girl’ networks realised that many gen X and gen Y don’t go for all that rubbish – and remember that they are fast coming up to take over the ranks – and perhaps its time the beehive and its all its little older and more experienced ‘bees’ started to lead by example – because teaching the new dog the old tricks is so last century.
Surely it would be better to promote a standard of debate that attacks the ideas and not the person? This is what teachers try to encourage in classrooms. Why is the identity of the commenter relevant? Surely each comment should be taken on its merits?
Paul is right! Any staffer who is being ‘encouraged’ to post comments on behalf of their minister is, in effect, trolling. Red Alert is obligated to tell us when it is happening so that the rest of us know what we are up against.
the problem is not exactly that its staffers posting, the problem is, how do we know its not really the Minister giving instructions, i.e. the staffer acting as a front for the Minister. They need to be outed or to declare, so their views can be seen in context.
Ministerial staff need to be open who they are, so they can convince us they are not just ciphers for their Ministers, who could be telling them what to write, without having to take responsibility. If Anne Tolley posted here we would want to know it was her, and she ought to take responsibility for her posts. If Anne Tolley’s staff post here pretending to be disinterested members of the public, when they are (a) inherently not disinterested, and (b) possibly posting on the Ministers’ suggestions/instructions, as a front for the Minister, then that is a problem. It is mischievous and a bit like cheating, unless they declare themselves and explicitly state that it is their views and they take responsibility, and not their Minister.
The other thing is that if a staffer posts here, saying who they are, they run the personal risk they will embarrass their Ministers. So really they are stuck either way. But then, they aren’t forced to work in the Beehive.
Given how many staff Tolley goes through (I have heard but could be a rumour)it also would not surprise me if some of the posts that show how disliked she is (does ANYONE respect or like her???)are ex staffers – but yes, if they work for her and are responding on her – or any of the nats – behalf – out them by all means. That way we have some form of transparency, and frankly, given some of the shonky things going on in the country right now, a bit of transparency would be a welcome change.
in my case jabba is a nick name I have at work for about 14 years. I have no problem using ny real name BUT I would not comment on things in my work area, which I have done a few times.
If admin (Trevor and others) see comments from someone from PS that was anti Labour I think they would delete it .. if damimng to the Nats Act etc, I think they would let it go. I hope I am wrong as I’m sure they are fair .. ??
I hate spies (except James Bond and Jason Bourne) BUT whistleblowers have their place .. the beancounter woman at Enron is my hero.
I would say the point of these comments sections are for private citizens to express their views about the issues raised on this blog. Anyone would has who may have a ‘conflict of interest’ (for lack of a better term) on an issue, should at least declare that, even if they don’t name themselves. Perhaps you should change your commenting rules to reflect this? They they have been warned and I think it is fair game to ‘out’ them, though I don’t think going as far as naming them is fair, perhaps merely mentioning that they work for so-and-so?
On a related topic, I am always surprised at how willing some people are to use their real names on the internet when they don’t have to. While I agree that newspapers and such require a full name for letters they publish, it is worth keeping in mind that the internet is a bit different from papers. While I don’t really mind associating things I’ve said with my real name if they really want (i.e. if they put effort into it and search through newspapers page by page), I am very uncomfortable with people being able to link things to me by name simple by typing my name into a search engine – the latter will happen if you use your real name, so be warned.
Quite frankly I have found the moderaters of Red Alert do an excellent job, and have found only 1 exception where Tim Ellis was banned for a period over a nothing remark.
That aside, moderaters keep the comments on topic and decent.
It is a good blog.
Don’t ruin a good formulae, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”
Outing would lose credibility.
BTW I am a swing voter.
There is another angle to this post that hasn’t been covered. If we know what is going on – and when – then we can have some fun with them in the same way The Standard does with Timmy Ellis.