I Don’t Trust the Library Journal

Actually, i have less respect for the annoyed librarian for being hired by an “establishment” journal; I think it will be difficult to maintain it’s free-wheeling outlook; I doubt any librarian thought the AL was a legitimate journalist, an idea that being hired by the Library Journal promotes.

“do you respect a publication that allows one of their writers to be anonymous, when that anonymity has been used in the past to attack other librarians and the work they do”

Yes, they’re taking a chance and doing something different, I respect that.

And I’m with Lisa. AL is a sell out.

It is a very strange arrangement, and undeniably a sell-out by someone whose raison d’etre is to post anonymous snarky anti-establishment things. It will probably increase LJ’s hits on their site but I don’t know how it advances their mission.

I agree with your take on things, David.

By hiring the Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal is entertaining thoughts that conflict with their own; counter-arguments and perspectives on hot topics in the library world, an alternative viewpoint. This is the very mark of professionalism in my book, to allow conflicting opinions to freely flow.

As far as AL’ anonymity and snarkiness, that is part of her creative voice, and who would want to stifle that?

wow. about 50/50 on the AL, blogging, breathing.
I’m glad she’s writing for LJ; it makes the statement said above, that LJ can take the occasional criticism and can let an anonymous someone dish it.
I respect LJ for this, but lost a little respect for AL for taking the $$.
But still, if she writes well, that’s all that matters to me.
And if you need to be anonymous to be able to express yourself, then why should anyone complain.

I’ve gone on record saying that I don’t have a problem with anonymous bloggers. There are some good reasons for it, and it can allow certain issues to be discussed that might otherwise be difficult - although it shouldn’t be - but it is. Among faculty there are many anonymous bloggers and no one seems to have a problem with it. But I have also gone on record saying it’s cowardly for a blogger to attack or criticize others (not their ideas - them - personally) behind the cloak of anonymity. If you want to attack someone else, have the guts to stand behind your words and take responsibility for what you say. LJ is a business and they are motivated by profits and web clicks. They do what they need to in order to stay in business. If they think this is a way to do that I don’t have a problem with it. If enough librarians don’t like it they’ll go elsewhere. But if their gamble pays off…more power to them.

Let’s face it. The AL has got the consistently hottest librarian blog of anyone, and by far. By very far. Even the ALA’s own American Libraries Forum is hardly visited by 65,000+ members, but the AL gets hundreds of comments per single post. The ALA Forum has a hundreds comments total since it opened almost a year ago.

Further, the AL’s blog is interesting because it’s not just another outlet for the same old same old from the ALA. Look at all the blogs talking about how wonderful Banned Books Week is–sometimes cutting and pasting directly from the ALA at the ALA’s urging. The AL, on the other hand, can be countered on for a refreshingly different point of view, all done with dry wit, like her martinis. And with those hundreds of comments, many of them are really quite interesting as well.

The Library Journal, in picking up the AL, has just added a major magnet pulling in hundreds of people per day. I think it’s a great move for both the LJ and the AL. Yes, it’ll benefit the LJ’s bottom line (and even the AL’s), but at the same time it will provide a wider platform for freedom of speech and all those other high minded ideals librarianship is all about. It will open up honest discuss to an even broader community of librarians and patrons.

Bravo to the Library Journal, and brava to the AL.

The AL’s being anonymous is part of the fun and allure of her web site. I hope she stays anonymous.

The question is, given the relatively few comments on the LJ’s site compared to the AL’s, will the LJ become the Annoyed Library Journal?

Back in 2006, I was one of the first people in the blogosphere to write a blog post about the Annoyed Librarian blog. At that time, being an Annoyed info pro myself, I found some, shall we say, kinship with her Annoyed-ness, her wit, and her acidic style of writing.

After a while, however, I found the posts were becoming increasingly contrarian, lacking fresh ideas or perspective, merely opposing any and everything that was being proposed by other librarians, be it gaming in libraries or ALA politics.

Slowly, I began to sense that there was more than one librarian behind the AL. The output was far too much for one librarian (unless that one librarian was an extremely idle and workshy individual), and the wide-range of topics seemed to point to different people with different agendas. Therefore, I believe the Annoyed Librarian is in fact a collective of librarians each sharing a common twisted bond. Who knows. Maybe I am one of them, maybe someone posting a comment here is one of them.

So now that the Library Journal has given the AL a home to call her/their own, I believe LJ is essentially, and tragically, endorsing this Annoyed and Anonymous behavior.

But to be fair, one must give credit where credit is due. The AL is a motor of social media 2.0. She/they are earning money from her/their blogging activities. How many of us can say that? I surely can’t, though I have a few loyal readers (three at last count). Furthermore, I have never seen another blog other than the AL generate so many comments (albeit some comments can rightfully be called comment crud, but that’s another story once again).

The AL is controversial and as a result she/they attract a very large readership. She/they can be so blunt because she/they are anonymous. Readers are abuzz each time the AL posts something new.

Perhaps the LJ wants the same buzz - and notoriety.

I think you should LOL on this one - I know, it’s easy for me to talk from the other side of the world but… I think LJ’s doing this for the visitors and to collect those guys’ clicks who are actually against transparent libraries.
I think it’s great to have both sides on the same sites - Library 2.0 guys and traditionalists. The only thing that bothers me a bit about this one is anonimity, as David wrote.
There’s a need for this kind of “counter-blogs” - anyway, I read Annoyed Librarian just for fun, not for the deeeeeeep content…
Greetings from Hungary!

I think this is much to do about nothing. I see the AL as more of a place where satire and sarcasm take place. I don’t subscribe to the AL feed any more.

What an interesting array of responses.

One person believes that a blog that began in February 2006 disappeared “years ago,” which would be quite a trick.

A few people seem to question the practices of 18% of library-related bloggers (among the 607 in the study I’m working on), that is, not disclosing their full names on their blogs.

A bunch of people don’t distinguish between pseudonymity and anonymity. They’re not the same thing. Pseudonymity for controversial statements has a long history, and was certainly part of the American revolution. Of course, pseudonymous and anonymous statements do not gain any gravitas from the person making them (except to the extent that a pseudonymous writer establishes it through the words themselves).

Seems to me that if you don’t find AL’s stuff worth reading, there’s an easy solution, whether it’s on LJ’s platform or elsewhere. Don’t read it. (LJ’s platform mostly makes it more difficult to follow the blog and comments; that’s a different problem.) I certainly don’t believe that being on LJ’s platform gives posts added weight–that would be akin to believing that LJ Movers & Shakers were actually more important than anyone else and deserving of deference. (I don’t believe that either–lots of great people there, but also lots of great people not there.)

I disagree with AL on lots of things (for example, the OIF and Washington Office are two big reasons I’m still an ALA member). I couldn’t write in the style they/he/she it uses. For that matter, I don’t think I could or would write anonymously/pseudonymously…my so-called style is a little too distinctive.
But I’m not ready to put down AL or others because they choose to do so.

If the content stinks, that’s different–and then I simply ignore it. Isn’t that the best advice in general?

David: LJ hasn’t put disclaimers on any of the articles we’ve published over the years by librarians we’ve disagreed with, though we may have cringed at some of their positions. John Berry even had a columnist with whom he regularly disagreed (Herb White), but we published Herb White until Herb decided to retire. AL doesn’t represent LJ; only the editors of LJ do that, and even we don’t always agree.
Walt makes some good comments on this whole controversy. And by the way, Walt, I’ve been following the LITA string regarding naming “classic” librarians as Movers & Shakers. We’ve been talking about how to recognize long-standing contributors to the profession and will definitely be doing that in 2009; I doubt we’ll ever be able encompass the many librarians who’ve been “Moving & Shaking” lo these many years.

Love the Annoyed Librarian! It’s well written. I find it interesting and will read it until I no longer find it entertaining. And I almost always read the comments on the AL blog because they are often witty and intelligent, too. That’s more than I can say for most blogs which spend an inordinate amount of time in self-promotion and self-aggrandizement (and ditto for the little clique of bloggers that all seem to spend a lot of time patting each other on the back, quoting each other, and acting smug about their careers). I don’t care about whether or not it’s anonymous. I care about whether I find it interesting reading. And, to the Annoyed Librarian: Good for you! Cheers!

Michael Porter,

You say you don’t read LJ because they don’t bring “positivity” to the profession. Why, may I ask you, must a professional publication bring positivity to the profession? Certainly they must publish articles that will better the profession and those who practice it, but sometimes that involves bearing the horrible, ugly truth about the profession. There are many horrible, ugly truths about librarianship, and all too often those truths are overlooked in favor of an upbeat, can-do attitude. I respect anyone who is willing to whack the collective head of librarianship over the head with the reality stick: AL included, and now LJ.

David

Why shouldn’t LJ pay for the AL’s work? Do they not pay authors such as yourself, who discuss technological innovation and the rewards of being a librarian? Why not pay for somebody to write about the frustrations apparent in the job? Why not pay for somebody willing to criticize the leaders of the profession?

Brandon
I didn’t say I don’t read LJ, I said I don’t read AL. I DO read LJ.

I also disagree that ugly truths in librarianship are “all too often….overlooked in favor of an upbeat, can-do attitude”. Talk to me about some of the messed up reality of Libraryland some time. I work in Libraryland to try and fix that stuff! And in writing I believe that the most helpful and constructive people try to be positive and encouraging, focusing on the REAL benefit of technology, particularly emerging technology. AL does not do that generally.

Please don’t mistake excitement and inspiration for naivety. At least in this case.

When it comes to technology, I agree that too much of most anything is bad, technological over exuberance included. Many of the people that take differing positions from AL are decidedly NOT just all about being all smiles. They are about exposing the practical, real world value of technology and they know first hand how hard it is in the real worl of Libraryland. I agree that there is techno-puffery to be found, but approach to that makes all the difference, especially in the sorts of situations I mentioned in my previous comment.

My take is that the AL is negative and discouraging more often than not and that is damaging in my opinion.

I notice that the new thing these days is to hire people who are confrontational and mean-spirited. This is true for cable TV, talk radio, etc. You also find this trend in book publishing. Doesn’t matter WHAT you are saying, as long as it’s loud and acerbic. Not unlike our politcs, as well. We’re obsessed with tearing each other down. I guess I fall into that trap too, since I leave angry comments all over the Internet.

It’s disturbing. I wish I knew why we’re all acting so boarish.

An interesting discussion, and there are certainly lots of issues swirling around:
- Writing anonymously;
- Being critical (but not necessarily constructively) of libraries and the library profession;
- The LJ paying someone that does both of the above.

Certainly we can agree that there is nothing particularly wrong with writing anonymously. And while constructive criticism is appropriate in most professional situations, it is by no means the only kind of criticism. There is also room for the kind of criticism that provokes *others* to create constructive solutions. (Personal attacks, IMO however, shouldn’t be hidden by masks).

Should the LJ support anonymous criticism? I don’t see why not.

I have been named and belittled in that blog. The few times I have posted I responded with my name. The article– “On Anonymity in Libraryland Blogging” by John Buschman, Mark Rosenzweig & me; Progressive Librarian Issue no. 29, Summer 2007–pretty much sums up what I think on this.
– Kathleen de la Peña McCook
http://libr.org/pl/contents29.html

Well, we all at least know what pronoun to use for her now.

I cannot believe librarians, like Jessamyn, would actually call this a weird decision.

If you don’t like the column, don’t read it.

Seriously, you’re librarians/library workers.

Anonymity for free speech is an essential and protected freedom in the states. I applaud LJ for running the AL blog.

That said, I bet AL’s not going to remain anonymous long.

I also suspect there will be vindictive bunhuns soon after.

AL’s anonymity allows him/her to express unpopular opinions which could be damaging to his/her career.
Many Librarians who blog are also hyper-aware of the self marketing aspects of blogging, and as a result post bland and uninteresting pieces guaranteed to offend no one.
A single anonymous blog does not destroy the credibility of LJ. It provides a little diversity and contrast. I am reminded of the original set-up of the Talk of the Town section in the New Yorker: short anonymous blurbs.
I can understand that Librarians who have felt the cutting edge of AL’s blog might be disappointed by this decision, but (and I mean this gently) they should toughen up a little bit.

Emily, You say, “AL’s anonymity allows him/her to express unpopular opinions which could be damaging to his/her career.” But you think it o.k. for him/her to name people and attack them? If I am going to attack a person by name, I think it is only ethical that I do so with my name.
Karen Schneider at Free Range Librarian said it well:
“I didn’t read LJ to hear the cowardly natterings of some anonymous blogger. I read it for straight-up reporting I could believe in, and opinion from people who had the balls to put their bylines on their posts. John Berry could be outrageous, but I could pick up the phone and talk to him.” —
http://freerangelibrarian.com/2008/10/10/rip-library-journal/

I think its fine to be anonymous as long as the ideas and information are getting out there to start discussions. Why do we have to know who the person is? Is a name and a face really important when many are made up anyway? I like the mystery of not knowing. And, to be honest, we need a quick kick in the butt most of the time to get our heads out of the clouds and really re-think and re-evaluate the services we provide.