Outed by The Union

(Summary of what happened is below the updates, here)
______________________________

Updates, most recent first:

Wed. June 29: I've described the interesting (to me) pattern of reactions to the outing in a comment at PressThink. Locally, still no responses (beyond the already-published email exchanges). I haven't been pushing though; just left an ignored reminder and made another unreturned phone call to circ. director.

Monday June 20: No response from city editor, no response from circ director, one polite response from the Spam Firewall at smtp.theunion.com:

I'm sorry to inform you that the message below [sent 2 days before] could not be delivered. When delivery was attempted, the following error was returned.
: connect to 66.92.199.3[66.92.199.3]: Connection refused.
the message::
Hello Craig, thanks for your response.
People who place classified ads with you are advertisers, correct?
(if I'm mistaken about this, please let me know)
Thanks -
Anna Haynes

Wednesday June 15: No response from city editor, nothing new on their blog. On separate topic, circ. director emailed back - "Unfortunately, audit information is something we only share with our advertisers." I've replied, asking if those who place a classified ad are advertisers.

Tuesday June 14: emailed The Union's city editor this morning asking if his recollections matched editor Pat Butler's; no response as yet. Didn't get a response from Mr. Butler on how I might get the circulation report, so I've emailed the circ. director, on the off chance that it works better than phone. No posts about the outing (or any new posts) on The Union's weblog.
Others have been more vocal:
Media Bloggers Association president Robert Cox has posted some pointed questions for David Mirhadi in The Union's weblog comments, reprinted here on his weblog. Robert is a master of blistering prose, and I am very glad he's on my side of the barricades this time...
Local blogger Sadie argues that it's inappropriate to have an anonymous blog if you engage in criticism of others. (which is why I shared my last name with the folks at The Union, thus violating a different principle, "don't tell a reporter anything you don't want reported.")
Also, belated thanks to global blogfather Dave Winer.

Monday June 13: a brief (three word) response from editor Pat Butler, in the email after this one.

Sunday June 12: Chewie's account is much clearer than mine. Ed Cone and John Robinson have also weighed in.
Related, and needing your contributions - today's post.
Sorry for the disorganized post below - like I said, Chewie does a much better job.

Friday June 10: I've sent a second reminder to each, along with an offer to donate $100 (each) to Hospice if they'll answer my questions.
(also performed minor cleanup and clarified some logic below.)

Friday June 3:
Email exchanges with the reporter and with the editor regarding my outing are now up on NCDocuments.
(BTW, my intent is to always ask and get permission before publishing emails, except in cases like this. Go, read, make up your own mind as to whether it was appropriate in this instance.)

In other news, The Union's publisher has raised $200 for Hospice today - he says he was not involved in the decision to print my name. Still no word from editor Pat Butler or reporter David Mirhadi on my questions to them from two nights ago, as to who (besides Mirhadi) was involved in making the decision. Publisher says "call Pat Butler" - but the phone leaves no text trail, and people can be - and have been - snowed by misleading wording, and recollections can vary even when communication is in good faith, and at this point I loathe "he said she said". [snip]

Thursday June 2:
Should the title of this post revert back to the original "Outed, and Stonewalled, by The Union"?
Reporter David Mirhadi was the one who outed me, with full awareness that I had not given consent. [snip]
I've asked whether he had guidance in making this decision, and if so from whom, but answers have not been forthcoming.
Hospice of the Foothills is a very deserving organization, and the previous offer(below) went untouched, so I'll double it, for a slightly different question for the publisher - Jeff, $200 to Hospice if you'll tell me whether you were involved (directly or indirectly) in the decision to print my name. (answered Friday; he says he wasn't)
Thursday morning: Changed name of post to reflect correction.

Wednesday June 1 correction and updates:
In the comments below, Dixie Redfearn points out that she did email me, twice, in response to my email and voicemail. Dixie, I am very sorry - stupid move on my part. Moral of story, that others might do better (they probably will anyway) - when you set up a rule to automatically send emails to a folder, CHECK THE FOLDER.
I also got responses today, from editor and reporter. It was done deliberately.
________________________________________

Summary (updated Friday June 10) -
NCFocus is no longer an anonymous weblog. On Memorial Day, reporter David Mirhadi published my full name in The Union, deliberately, when I had asked him not to - he included NCFocus in a roundup of local blogs, pulling the synopsis and my first name from the blog, then plugging in my last name, which I'd provided in my email to him. I'd thought it was only ethical to provide it there; seems it was also naive.
(The third time one is kicked in the head by a mule, it is not a learning experience)

My email exchanges with reporter David Mirhadi and editor Pat Butler regarding circumstances of the decision to print my name * came to a halt when I asked Mr. Mirhadi to confirm or deny that he'd been aware he was outing an anonymous blogger, and when I asked who else had been involved in the decision.
(I'm told The Union's publisher was not involved.)

In fairness to those at The Union, I have not asked for an apology (and don't want one, in the paper itself) - what I most wanted from them was to know what happened and why.

________________________________________
the original post:


In their roundup of local weblogs yesterday (photo here), after I'd specifically asked reporter David Mirhadi "please don't use my last name", The Union published my full name.

The NCFocus background info they printed comes from the (old) Profiles and Policies page, where it's made clear that the weblog is anonymous.

Before they outed me, I'd made the point to them - numerous times - that this action is wrong:

• After The Union appeared * to have outed someone else, I pointed out (here) on their blog that exposing someone's identity without consent is not appropriate behavior.
  
  
• As I noted in The Union's weblog comments here, anonymity has value in a community like ours that historically has been rife with corruption and intimidation (by threats, vandalism, arson...). Silver lining: now I'm ideally situated to report whether it is all in the past. :-}
  
  
• (added June 3) And in off-topic comments (here) to the editor's very second post, I quoted and linked to Lisa Williams' writings on the need to allow anonymity.)
  

Emails to editor Pat Butler and reporter David Mirhadi, and readership editor Dixie Redfearn (no - see update above) asking who decided to publish my name, have gone unanswered.
(did they all take the day off?)

Superseded - see Thurs update above, he answered. This evening I've emailed publisher Jeff Ackerman, offering a $100 donation to Hospice in exchange for answers to these questions:

• Whose decision was it?
  
• What was the justification?

Stay tuned.

Advice for current and future bloggers: when something like this happens to you, it is really, really good to sleep on it before posting. The wisps of smoke now wafting from my ears are nothing like yesterday's jets of fire.