by Ethan Johnson
March 29, 2007

It must be Thursday, because we who co-exist in an insular bubble just went through heartache and tumult. Considering I think myself to be outside of what is commonly called the blogosphere, I admit that I am easily sucked in to various vortices, for good or for ill. This particular hiccup was a doozy, despite my rather peripheral involvement.

I'll begin by pointing to Shelley Powers' blog, where the key details and my running commentary may be found. I am choosing to empty out my head here not so much regarding the "incident" and subsequent backlash itself, but bigger issues that rushed to the fore.

If you are unaware of the flap that just rippled through x amount of the blogosphere, you may want to cut your losses now and seek entertainment elsewhere. Fair warning.

To summarize very briefly, a prominent blogger claimed to have received death threats from another blogger, which led to (understandable) outrage and calls for retribution. Unfortunately, if the United States collectively looked like (charitably...) idiots for storming into Iraq under the auspices of the Global War on Terror™, this played out on a somewhat smaller scale in blogland when at least 4 semi-prominent and/or long-established bloggers were named as co-conspirators, after a fashion. Unfortunately, claims of hard evidence were not backed up with any solid proof, resulting in the termination of at least one of these long-standing blogs, The Head Lemur (URL is dead so no link).

Alan Herrell is/was the Lemur, and appears to be a victim of guilt by association. I will note here that I do not dismiss or otherwise discount the seriousness of any death threats, and sincerely hope that the appropriate legal actions are being taken in the aftermath. I do not claim to know the mind of Alan Herrell, and at best we are distant associates, having never communicated in any form other than comment sections on various sites. In short, I don't know the guy.

However, several years in the blogging biz establishes something of a track record. Even if I don't consider this site to be a blog in the slightest, I too have a record of my own, and passers-by can evaluate it and determine what sort of person they think me to be. It may not be an accurate opinion, for various reasons, but citations might be made as to how those conclusions were reached.

Alan Herrell struck me as a guy with strong opinions about a great many things, varying in degrees of "importance", if that's the word I am looking for. Topics ranged from a remodeling project he was working on, to why US copyright laws need reform, to complaints about Windows Vista, to complaints about a subset of bloggers he called the "Shiny Happy People." It is worth noting that the blogger who reported the death threat(s) belonged to this set of bloggers, by Alan's classification.

Due to his affiliation with a purportedly mean-spirited team blog (disclaimer: I have never read the site in question so I cannot definitively speak to its content), and some apparent identity theft, Alan was not just ostracized, but vilified for his perceived role in the death threat case. Alan angrily shut down his blog after issuing a terse statement of disgust.

From my vantage point, I would imagine that this scandal of sorts has given someone like Seth Finkelstein a fresh clip of ammo to justify the perception, if not the reality that prominent bloggers, at the time and place of their choosing, may opt to rain down the sort of life-altering, career-destroying, reputation-sullying negative attention on those who they perceive to be, rightly or wrongly, their enemies. This certainly is a case that bolsters that belief, without question.

Other than the loss of his weblog, I cannot quantify what other collateral damage Alan may have suffered in the wake of this scandal. Certainly his online reputation is damaged, if not ruined. I find it interesting that the same behaviors that get one labeled a "salty old bastard, God love 'im" can be so easily refocused as He Who Shall Never Blog Again. There are times that I'm reminded of a scene in Die Hard II (terrible movie) where Bruce Willis unwittingly tells one of the bad guys "you're alright." In a rather prescient moment, the bad guy replies, "no, I'm just your kind of asshole."

In another frame of reference, I liken the fallout to seeing loads of Frugal Gourmet cookbooks at the used bookstore. Same recipes, same advice, different view of the provider. I don't remember what he did but apparently it was unforgivable. Same with Bob Greene, formerly of the Chicago Tribune. Long career, one high profile mistake, and poof, end of the line. Interesting that Marv Albert has been back in the broadcast booth so relatively quickly after his brush with notoriety. But I digress.

So what to do? I'm hardly the arbiter of what constitutes closure in the wake of this case, but here are my observations just the same:

• Pull up chairs: You people think you have enemies? Heck, it was once a point of pride for me to have at least one seething ball of hate at my heels, because what's a hero without a nemesis? The problem there is that this way of thinking blurs the distinction between who is who/what. One of the toughest things I ever had to do was face a long-standing nemesis and hash out what went wrong, why, how to fix it, and most importantly, accept responsibility for my role in the conflict. When people get a "pro wrestling" attitude about conflicting parties, the air really deflates from that balloon when the conflicting parties actually talk things out. But I daresay it's the more constructive option.
• Justice, or revenge? It was a cool line in Clash of the Titans, and no less relevant in this case. I likened the immediate fallout of this case to a schoolyard brawl. For some context, a fight broke out once in elementary school between Whoever and What's-His-Nose, and it widened out like one of those saloon brawls in Western flicks. In the aftermath, it was clear that boys and girls alike were physically harmed in the melee, and it was to one's advantage to curry sympathy by citing some sort of unjust war wound, no matter how it really happened. Without getting into nitpicking detail, at least one prominent blogger went on a crusade to avenge slights real and imagined. People like Alan Herrell, despite their faults, received punishments that in no way fit the crime.
• Clear the air: I personally would like to hear Alan Herrell's side of the story, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, with the air thick with torches and pitchforks. "When did you stop beating your wife" isn't exactly the most trust-building, dialogue-encouraging question one could ask.
• First the grain, then the ear, then the grain in the ear: I don't read the Christian Science Monitor regularly, but I still recall how impressed I was, long before I ever set foot in Texas, with that newspaper's coverage of the Branch Davidian Compound standoff in the 1990s. Unlike other breathless news outlets, the Monitor did the unthinkable for about a week after the initial standoff: They didn't report the story. True to their operating principle, they collected the most credible material regarding the story and then laid it all out in one fell swoop: What happened, what went wrong, why, and how it could have all been avoided, or handled without incident. Incredible. It amazes me that for all of the grief that is laid at the feet of today's credulous 24-hour news media for not being thorough enough, or for being partisan, or rushing to judgement for the sake of shaping the headlines, that people who are empowered to be so-called citizen journalists engaged in the same behaviors, albeit on a smaller scale. At least at first. The BBC interviewed various figures post-scandal, and so the net widens. As does the collateral damage, I'm sure.
• J'accuse! I was deeply disappointed to see serious charges being leveled without hard evidence. Being "mean" is not on par with being the sort of person who deals in death threats. Certain criticism may be viewed as "mean". If you're going to put someone's reputation/livelihood on the line, regardless of your personal opinion concerning that person, present the evidence. This crap about "this is an ongoing investigation" or "I know what I saw" doesn't cut it. If you're going to play the "ongoing investigation" card, the stuff a sock in it. Nothing undermines the case better than a leaky prosecution.

My hope, in the cold light of dawn, is that yes, people understand that actions have consequences, and lobbing rhetorical hand grenades isn't the shortest, smoothest path to a productive discourse. Conversely, the fact is, some people plain don't like other people. I hate zucchini, for example. It's not personal, but it makes me retch. I don't expect that everyone in the world will find me to be someone they'd like to spend an afternoon with. Those feelings take many forms, and though this may be unpopular at present, I think "mean" web sites do have their place, even if in small doses. I'll note here that the call did not go out to eradicate all "mean" web sites, just a very specific group of them, followed by four names. The posse can officially claim a scalp.

It is a dim hope, but just the same, in truth, the blogosphere doesn't have the life-altering force that its proponents credit it with: We individually acqueisce to that power. I'm sure that Alan Herrell will rebound from this whole affair, as will the other players, perhaps older and wiser. But while I would like to believe that a high concentration of "A-List" wrath doesn't carry a heavy price outside of the blogosphere, I'm afraid people like Alan will serve as evidence of its scope and breadth.

Alan, if you ever read this, I want you to know that I believe that you had nothing to do with the issuance of any death threats against anyone. 20/20 hindsight might reveal how this situation might have been handled better, but I don't believe those lessons fall squarely on you to assimilate.

In closing, I am reminded of a radio commercial that aired locally for the Liberal Catholic Church. The deacon said, "Jesus said that 'whatever you do unto the least of us, you do unto me.' And how do we create least? By judging people, and wagging fingers."

So I say to you, the least of us still walks among us. How will we treat him? <EM>