Does history remain anonymous?

In the course of debating the identity of Deep Throat, there's an important point which should not be forgotten: the character was Woodward and Bernstein's creation. An anonymous identity made up by them to protect who they claim was a vital source. Thus, in logic, only Woodward and Bernstein would seem to have the intellectual right to disclose who Deep Throat is. Obviously, this presents problems for anyone claiming that Deep Throat was someone else, or that the character never existed.

Suppose a blogger were to write a post based on information gleaned from someone whose identity the blogger wanted to protect, and named the character, say, "Rove Wade." Unless someone else independently confirmed the identity of the source and disclosed it, only that blogger would seem to have the right to tell the world who the mysterious "Rove Wade" actually was.

If the blogger did, however, does that mean that he would necessarily be telling the truth? After all, anyone can say anything.

And suppose the blogger had assigned to the character certain specific traits that might fit any number of people, but which also ruled out certain people who did not fit the profile. Suppose further that he'd repeatedly insisted (as Woodward did) that this profile was true. If he later identified someone who didn't fit the profile (and who had repeatedly denied being the person) as that person anyway, how much credibility would that blogger have? Couldn't he expect that others might seek to verify his claims?

Then there's the difference between "anonymous" and "fictional." I don't mean to use these terms interchangeably, but if a blogger assigned a name and a description to a fictional source, that would no more create an "anonymous" source than Janet Cooke's "Jimmy" character created a real person.

Of course, it wouldn't much matter much if a lowly blogger did stuff like that with his own anonymous -- or fictionalized -- character. He might lose credibility, but few people would care.

With Deep Throat, though, an anonymous and/or fictional character became an accepted part (albeit an unproved, legendary part) of American history. In one fell swoop, we are being told to believe that the loss of anonymity eliminates any possibility of fiction -- previous indicators of fiction notwithstanding.

The identification of Deep Throat thus proposes a change in history. Mark Felt being a real person, he either was the source described as Deep Throat or he was not. This means that all of Deep Throat's (and Mark Felt's) details become fair game -- for historians, bloggers, or anyone else.

Whether or not Mark Felt is indeed the legendary "Deep Throat," the end of his anonymity (assuming that's what this is) doesn't end historical inquiry.

Or skepticism.

posted by Eric on 06.03.05 at 12:34 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2401






Comments

This means that all of Deep Throat's (and Mark Felt's) details become fair game -- for historians, bloggers, or anyone else.

Yeah, yeah, throw it on the "urgent" pile, we'll get to it soon as we're done finding those Iraqi WMDs, the Saddam-Osama link, proof of the validity of "intelligent design," proof that abstinence-only sex-ed works, and some backup for this new "pot causes psychosis" theory...

Raging Bee   ·  June 3, 2005 02:41 PM

I like urgent piles.

But surely you didn't mean to leave out Michael Jackson?

Eric Scheie   ·  June 3, 2005 03:25 PM

Actually, I did. The less said about that sad disgusting old Peter-Pan-wannabee the better.

Raging Bee   ·  June 3, 2005 05:05 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits