People have tried to slap some labels on us, but a right-wing group in disguise? Seriously? Have you read what we put out on a near daily basis? A right-wing group that encourages people to subscribe to Thom Hartmann?
We are curious how attaching our real names to our articles would help quell your paranoia. How would that help?
People have tried to slap some labels on us, but a right-wing group in disguise? Seriously? Have you read what we put out on a near daily basis? A right-wing group that encourages people to subscribe to Thom Hartmann?
We are curious how attaching our real names to our articles would help quell your paranoia. How would that help?
Our names wouldn't be recognizable to anybody except our families and friends, so it's not as if we'd instantly gain trust or confidence because of a byline with a middle initial.
I’ve been following Closer to the Edge on Facebook for sometime now and I would never consider them right-wing; sometimes TL;DR but always on point. The fact that they work as a collective and don’t put their actual names on their work doesn’t bother me. I never used my real name on Twitter for good reason but I do here on Substack. I use a Nym when I comment on a number of blogs that I follow. Each individual has to make their own safety decisions and I’ll admit that I’m getting a little paranoid in the present atmosphere. Seeing people being snatched off of streets and being rendered to jail camps and/or out of the country is putting me closer to the edge (pun intended).
You'd gain credibility: name one credible news organization like, for example, the Guardian, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, etc., that refuses to reveal the names of their journalists.
Plenty of credible publications have featured anonymous or pseudonymous writers. The Economist is the most famous: no bylines, ever, since 1843. Their philosophy is that what’s written matters more than who wrote it. The Barrister did the same. So does Private Eye, often blending satire with serious investigative work under shared or fictional names.
So your standard — that credibility requires a name and a LinkedIn profile — doesn’t hold up historically or journalistically. Anonymity doesn't discredit a writer. Lazy arguments and bad sourcing do.
We’ll stand on the work. The receipts speak for themselves.
People have tried to slap some labels on us, but a right-wing group in disguise? Seriously? Have you read what we put out on a near daily basis? A right-wing group that encourages people to subscribe to Thom Hartmann?
We are curious how attaching our real names to our articles would help quell your paranoia. How would that help?
Our names wouldn't be recognizable to anybody except our families and friends, so it's not as if we'd instantly gain trust or confidence because of a byline with a middle initial.
What gives?
I’ve been following Closer to the Edge on Facebook for sometime now and I would never consider them right-wing; sometimes TL;DR but always on point. The fact that they work as a collective and don’t put their actual names on their work doesn’t bother me. I never used my real name on Twitter for good reason but I do here on Substack. I use a Nym when I comment on a number of blogs that I follow. Each individual has to make their own safety decisions and I’ll admit that I’m getting a little paranoid in the present atmosphere. Seeing people being snatched off of streets and being rendered to jail camps and/or out of the country is putting me closer to the edge (pun intended).
You'd gain credibility: name one credible news organization like, for example, the Guardian, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, etc., that refuses to reveal the names of their journalists.
Plenty of credible publications have featured anonymous or pseudonymous writers. The Economist is the most famous: no bylines, ever, since 1843. Their philosophy is that what’s written matters more than who wrote it. The Barrister did the same. So does Private Eye, often blending satire with serious investigative work under shared or fictional names.
So your standard — that credibility requires a name and a LinkedIn profile — doesn’t hold up historically or journalistically. Anonymity doesn't discredit a writer. Lazy arguments and bad sourcing do.
We’ll stand on the work. The receipts speak for themselves.