on the other hand---two curiously intertwined points.
1. on the topic directly: it is self-evident that there are situations in which it is important that a source be anonymous and for the anonymity of a source to be protected and respected---whistleblower law exists to provide formal protection for such sources (who might have information concerning unethical practices on the part of the company they work for, but whose livelihood might be endangered were it to become known that x was the person to made that information public)--but it is pretty obvious that this law only protects in some ways, not in all. this type of situation is generally understood as the rationale for anonymous sourcing.
none of this is new or even rocket science, so i am a bit confused about how it is that the specific type of situation that enframes source anonymity nine times of ten got bracketed in this discussion, and it got shifted onto a non-sequitor level of not using one's name in general when presenting information.
but that leads to the other point:
what exactly is attested to when one appends one's name to a statement?
it is pretty obvious that, say, statements generated by writers or talking heads from within conservativeland--to take an example--are not necessarily accurate, but rather are wrapped tightly around ideological propositions and are often meaningless if you subtract them---yet these statements float about attributed. you could say the same of all kinds of infotainment sources, but it's just plain fun to think about the sorry state of conservative-specific forms of infotainment as a general example, dont you think?
o sure we have all heard the rationale--that tedious projection they call "the liberal press" the referent for which is always at best secondary, which is pure signified, the sole function of which is to justify explicitly politicised infotainment aimed at a conservative audience by staging the action as reaction---it is pretty bloody obvious that this is a piece of fiction repeated by many conservative pundits in their own voice, with attribution---but nothing about that makes the proposition less arbitrary.
so what gives with this?
2. maybe in the pathetic world of american commercial logic, the proper name is a brand, and what is attributed to the brand a commodity and we all know that commodities can be trusted. what could possibly be a problem with a commodity?
this from earlier in the week:
Quote:
MLB Loses Appeal in Fantasy Baseball Lawsuit
Topics:Supreme Court (U.S.) | Sports
By Reuters | 02 Jun 2008 | 04:37 PM ET
Major League Baseball and the players association struck out on Monday when the U.S.
James A. Finley / AP
Supreme Court rejected their appeal of a ruling that sided with a company that uses player statistics for fantasy baseball.
The high court declined to hear the appeal of a lower-court ruling that a St. Louis-based company called C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing has a free-speech right to use the names and performance statistics of famous athletes.
Fantasy sports in the United States has become a $1.5 billion annual industry involving millions of participants, according to court documents in the case. Fantasy leagues involve participants who manage imaginary teams based on the statistics of real players.
C.B.C. sued after it was unable to obtain a license from a subsidiary of Major League Baseball to use players' names in its fantasy baseball games. The players association then intervened in the case, joining Major League Baseball and further asserting a breach-of-contract claim.
A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court in St. Louis ruled for the company. The high court rejected the appeal by the players and the league without comment.
After the Supreme Court refused to get involved in the dispute, a spokesman for the players union said, "We're considering our options." Officials from Major League Baseball declined to comment.
|
http://www.cnbc.com/id/24936540
though it really doesn't matter because this is a reuters wire release that bites an ap wire release.
sp far as major league baseball is concerned--and the player's association, it's double--the proper names and stats of players are elements of brand identities---and fantasy baseball sites that generate income based on the use of these elements in imaginary alternative baseball universes are violating trademark law.
so maybe that's the logic, as it operates today: the proper name appended to a statement is like appending skippy to a jar of peanut butter--the product might be shit, but at least it's consistent shit.
is that what's at stake here?