A Sunday ramble.

I was working on a post about anonymity, credibility, and journalistic protection and use of them, but GeeGuy managed to beat me to the punch on that, so I will refrain for now.
But I will ask the public a couple of questions that have been bouncing around in my mind.

There has been a lot of discussion over the public/private aspect of this Harris issue, the personal time to be just a guy letting off steam. Now I do think to some extent he has a right to be just a guy, doing what he likes. But he represented himself on these forums as a Judge. Not as Sam, an attorney or Sam, a gamer, but Sam, a Judge.
When Donna comments on these forums, perhaps on her personal time, she is viewed as our Mayor. When Joe Briggs comments, I have always had the feeling that he is doing it with the expectation that we will view his comments as coming from a County Commissioner. GeeGuy is constrained in many topics because of his profession. Steven Fagenstrom has made some recent comments, and he has done so in a manner befitting a man running for public office, knowing that is how he will be viewed. Dave is limited in some topics and forms of personal expression because of his job.

So, how do you separate the public person from the private person?
Is it really realistic to expect people to?

I have a couple readers who I do not know, But I read their blogs and feel I have a reasonable understanding of who they are. If they were to make comments or posts that were significantly different than the image I have of them I would be surprised. It would change the way I feel about them, and how I view what they say.

Is that unreasonable?

O.K. I cannot help myself.

Mr. Newhouse, If I had allowed you to print my name, how would that have lent more credibility to your story than the fact that the man in question had already admitted he made those comments?
You had proof. What happened to protecting your sources for that story?
I am not trying to make this personal, or cast any doubt on your trustworthiness, but it goes back to the questions above.
You are a reporter. If people had any doubt about your ability to keep their secrets in your private life, could that affect your job, and vice versa?
And now it seems that the Tribune has created a circumstance where it looks like it's reporters have treated the possible supporters of political opponents differently. Why?
Just asking.