Don't worry, Eric. I AM the real pikkumatti.

Hadn't given it a thought. I welcome all commenters, and my feature allows anonymous ones. In any event, you're not claiming to be an official spokesman for any group.

(On the other hand, if the WaPo started quoting "pikkumatti" as a "spokesperson," my curiosity might be aroused.....)

:)

If I remember correctly, it is perfectly legal to use any name you like at any time, except for the purpose of committing a crime.

In addition, I would be appalled if reporters were to start demanding identification from random people off the street.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think reporters can be held responsible when people lie to them about their names. How would the Inquirer know that the Morrison was Bessey unless/until a reporter who knew her under one name encountered her in the other context?

Mike, if you're right, that means she succeeded in conning the reporters. Nothing illegal about conning reporters, and I never said there was. But if I call the Post and say I'm "Fred Flintstone from the Justice Department," (or, "I'm Mike Heinz, Vice President of General Motors), should they just go ahead and quote me?

I'm hoping that "The Everlasting Phelps" is an obvious psuedonym and no one thinks that a parent will name a child "Everlasting".

Yeah but when you say you're "Lemmy's Cocoa Puff thing on his face," shouldn't we take that at face value?

Whether there's a point or not, that's a fascinating post.

Btw the Instapundit has one of this blog's biggest fans on it today... he emailed me to tell me...

"http://instapundit.com/archives/028803.php

In the last pic i'm on the left in jeans and black jacket with grey flannel
out the bottom, silver hair sunglasses and black gloves.

Will"

he doesn't comment here, but he loves this blog. I'm hoping he'll do a write up

cheers!

I told some reporters, but not all, of my legal name. I use Rowan Morrison as a pseudonym - it is not illegal to do so. It is illegal to give a false name to police.

The reporters who used my name in print did not know my legal name. Once some of them did know, they no longer quoted me by name, but instead referred to me as the "spokesperson" or "leader."

Dulary, the 42 year old elephant who is needlessly dying in a cement barn, has been lost in this debate. For that I am sorry.
www.helpphillyzooelephants.com

There's nothing illegal about using a pseudonym, and I never said there was. I think the reporters involved should have done a little more checking, though, and perhaps should have asked whether "Rowan Morrison" was your real name, or a pseudonym. If the fact that a pseudonym is being used is not disclosed, it's less than fair, and less than honest.

Legality is not a synonym for honesty.

I will be sending a press release out this week explaining the use of "Rowan Morrison." I will post it here as well if you really care that much. When I met with city councilmembers, I used my legal name and explained to each why I used a pseudonym.

It will be six months on March 1 that Dulary, the Asian elephant at the Philadelphia Zoo, has been living in a concrete barn. It is "less than honest and less than ethical" for the Philadelphia Zoo to keep her in that barn and mislead the public about her condition rather than send her to a sanctuary where she could roam free and be with other elephants.
Dulary is the innocent one in this situation, yet she is serving a six month sentence (and probably longer, if she doesn't die soon) in solitary confinement. I know I will have nightmares about her (I already have) when she dies.

correction - I meant to write "less than fair, and less than honest," in quotation marks. I am quite sensitive to the use of quotation marks when quoting someone else, particulary since my own words were incorrectly quoted in dozens of newspapers throughout the country, and here as well.

You have just asserted that your words were "incorrectly quoted" here, yet you have not specified which quotes are incorrect. I do not deliberately misquote people, so if I have misquoted you, please let me know what you actually said, and I will correct the quote.

I do think your continued use of the comments to promote your side of the elephant story (yes, there is another side, but that's not the subject of the post) avoids my central point, which is a basic question about journalistic ethics in the use of pseudonyms.

Once again, I think that it is dishonest to not disclose that a source's name is not that person's real name. That said, I cannot say who was being dishonest, because I don't think the mere use a pseudonym is inherently dishonest, as long as the fact that it's a pseudonym was disclosed. If you disclosed that fact and the news reporters failed to report it, it is they who are being less than honest, and not you.

You quoted me as I was quoted in the newspapers. I was misquoted in the newspapers. You can find the original quote here.
http://groups.msn.com/TheElephantCommentator/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=12505&LastModified=4675561909434224969

I'm not avoiding the issue of using an undisclosed pseudonym. Obviously, I think it's okay. You don't.

I understand that you consider it okay, but I'd like to know whether it's okay for journalists to not disclose that a source's name is not the real name.

Anyway, thanks for supplying that link. I've updated the post accordingly.

As I wrote above, most of the journalists did not know I was using a pseudonym. I did tell each of them that I did not disclose any personal information about myself when giving interviews about elephants (sometimes they ask about family, job, etc.)

Why does my name matter? I could go to city hall and change it tomorrow. If I were trading on a reputation or trying to hide something, I can understand it. But I used a different name, it was consistently reported as such; so what?

I find it more interesting that no one picked up on the reference. Don't we have any movie fans around these days?

"I know I'm really sticking my neck out, but for what it's worth, I don't think the Zoo Director should be "kept in a concrete closet for six months to hasten [his] demise." (As to the man's salary, I think it's about as relevant as that of "Rowan Morrison.")"

Do you think it's okay to keep a middle-aged elephant in a concrete closet for six months to hasten her demise? Why or why not? Elephants have much more of a need for space than humans - my point is that if it's okay for the elephant (not only okay, but downright luxurious - and Hoskins has referred to the elephants' Philly Zoo enclosure as a "resort") than it should be okay for the person responsible for the elephant. The sarcasm was lost in translation, but it's there if you really, really, really look.

And Pete Hoskins' salary is extremely relevant, for a number of reasons. First, he is among the top 1 percent of zoo directors' salaries, and paid over ten times what the directors of sanctuaries are paid. Second, his annual salaryis more than 30% over the Philadelphia Zoo's entire expenditure this year for "conservation." Zoos are always touting about how much they contribute to "conservation" of animals in the wild, I find it extremely relevant that one employee is paid more than 30% more than the entire zoo's annual budget for conservation. Third, it is generally accepted that if one works for a non-profit, the salaries are often lower than those in the private sector (disclaimer: my opinion, please don't cite me specific examples where non profit employees make as much if not more than their private sector counterparts - I know they exist. I'm generalizing here, okay?) I personally think $329,000 is a huge amount of money to spend on the salary of one person in any venue, let alone a non-profit.

While we're pondering these deep issues, Dulary, Petal, Kallie, and Bette remain in the cement barn surrounded by their own feces and urine.

In a news story, I think it matters who a person is. If the person has something critical to say about other people, it's only fair to say who they are, and if they don't want to say who they are, report that. What's to hide? If the fact of hiding is itself hidden, that begs the question of whether the reporting is reporting, or hiding.

What I think about elephants is irrelevant to any of the points I raised, and questions like "Do you think it's okay to keep a middle-aged elephant in a concrete closet for six months to hasten her demise?" are argumentative, and loaded with assumptions. Likewise the salary of the Zoo director bears no relationship to whether his decisions are correct, and is simply a form of ad hominem attack. Whether the zoo spends enough money on conservation is likewise a wholly different issue from elephants.

But even if this post had been about the elephant issue, your argument ("if it's okay for the elephant... it should be okay for the person responsible for the elephant") means that Zoo directors should live the same way the elephants under their care live.

Rowan, I think we're so far apart that a serious discussion is unlikely, but for starters, why are you singling out elephants? Aren't there other animals in the Zoo? Why should the Zoo director only live like one of his elephants? Assuming he forces elephants to live in "concrete closets," doesn't he also force birds to live in cages, and amphibians in aquariums? Why shouldn't it be "okay" to put him in an aquarium for one weekend, a bird cage the next, and only after that in his concrete box? For that matter, aren't there a lot of ordinary folks who routinely do things like cage their birds and crate their dogs? Isn't it a little hypocritical to allow them to go about uncaged and uncrated, while advocating the concrete closet only for Mr. Hoskins?

Hiding? I appeared on television multiple times. My name is meaningless, no one knows me from Adam (or at least didn't before).

Other animals in zoos are not dying at half their natural lifespan from captivity-induced conditions. But if you want to champion another animal you feel is suffering, I'll do what I can to help you. I also do a lot of volunteer work for children (e.g. volunteer for the Support Center for Child Advocates) and for other animals (e.g. I'm a member of the Animal Law Committee of the PBA). In addition, I lead a group known as the "Circus Education Campaign." Elephants are just one of many causes I support. They are in the news a lot these days because of the controversy surrounding them; consequently, my activities are also publicized. In a few years, when zoos either stop exhibiting them or they are all dead, they will be yesterday's news, and you probably won't hear anything about me. But I'll still be out there, plugging away, under either my legal name or Rowan Morrison.

I have to disagree that your name is meaningless. It's become quite meaningful. John Grogan devoted an entire column to your struggle today, and he's not the type to write about people without identifying them (or at least explaining why they weren't who they said they were).

(I suspect that whether he says so or not, John Grogan realizes that any journalist who knowingly misrepresented your identity committed a breach of journalistic ethics.)

Anyway (as I've said before) I think you're going to win this one, and the elephants will be moved. If I really thought you intended to end there, I probably would never have written about the issue. But among my fondest childhood memories are visits to "Jimmy the Hippo" and I'd hate to see children deprived of such opportunities to interact with animals.

"I think I could turn and live with animals. They are so placid and self-contained. They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins. They do not make me sick, discussing their duty to God. Not one of them kneels to another. Or to one of his own kind, that lived thousands of years ago. Not one of them is respectable, or unhappy, all over the earth."

Perhaps "Lady Summerisle" would have been a more obvious pseudonym. Too late now. Bit of a sticky wicker, eh what? Moving right along...

"Not one of them is respectable, or unhappy, all over the earth."

It's a nice thought, but factually incorrect.
A few moments reflection will bring to mind numerous counter-examples, both wild and domestic. Social animals have standards.

Lady Summerisle? No thanks! The Lord didn't seem too big on monogamy, which is kind of important to me.

Yes, my name is becoming somewhat "famous" - but only now - the cover of the Daily News will do that to you. It was never before, and I was completely "unknown" when I used the name Rowan Morrison. Again - no one knew me from Adam, and it didn't matter if I used the name Rowan Morrison, or mehitabel (another favorite). I wasn't hiding my identity in any way - appearing on television makes that hard to do. I used a pseudonym. Get over it.

"Anyway (as I've said before) I think you're going to win this one, and the elephants will be moved. If I really thought you intended to end there, I probably would never have written about the issue. But among my fondest childhood memories are visits to "Jimmy the Hippo" and I'd hate to see children deprived of such opportunities to interact with animals."

I don't think this needs to be assessed in zero-sum terms. "I" am not going to win anything - it's not a game or a war. It's an effort to help these elephants "get a life" (something as an advocate of animals I'm often accused of not having) and could be a win-win-win for the zoo, the elephants, and the advocates. The Detroit Zoo retired its elephants to a sanctuary last year not because of pressure from animal advocates but because - surprise - a decision of the zoo director. The space and resources previuosly spent on keeping a couple of elephants is now being used on the other zoo inhabitants, particularly the rhinos. There has been no drop off in membership or attendance at the zoo, and the expanded rhino exhibit has been met with great enthusiasm by zoo patrons.
The Philly Zoo could easily do the same. There is one lone rhino living in a tiny yard next to the elephants, and he would greatly benefit from an expanded enclosure. I have videotaped him displaying severe stereotypic behavior, bobbing and weaving facing his barn for hours. The hippos could also benefit, they are living in another tiny yard with basically a puddle to dip their feet into. Sure, kids love to see animals. But kids don't usually think about where the hippos go when the zoo closes, or how elephants live in the wild, or what the rhino's bobbing and weaving really means. They're innocent, just like the animals. It's the adults who are culpable.