webdiary impropriety?

 Subtitle: surely, it's a matter of fact.

-=*=-

The character-assassination of this writer continues apace over at Webdiary.

They appear to have little if any propriety at all.

From their own statement of ethics:

«1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used.»

[Webdiary Ethics]

The piece concludes with this:

«12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.

Guidance Clause

Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.»

[ibid.]

Lay-dees an' gennel-men! I've had enough.

I claim that attacks mounted by the Paul Morrella ID and published by Webdiary are exposing me to "risk of substantial harm."

If Paul Morrella is not the real name of the poster deploying that ID - and there are what I consider to be incontrovertible grounds to think that it isn't, see WD ethics vs. Paul Morrella where I outline my proof that Paul Morrella is not 'Paul Morrella' at all, but is a fake-ID creature exhibiting defining hallmarks of Jay White (this deployment being considered a conscious and premeditated fraud), then that poster is forbidden by Webdiary Ethics from having "attacks on other contributors" published, something which began with Morrella's very first post, and continues, even after I've been banished, i.e. I may no longer defend myself on that site.

As if that wasn't enough, the management of Webdiary - Roffey speaking for Kingston - now appear to this writer to verge on slander[1], libel[2] if not defamation[3] (wha'do I know?) themselves, insisting that I'm in some sort'a violation of their ethics or rules, since I insist on challenging the veracity of the Morrella-ID. (The situation appears so bad, going on so long, that one wonders if Webdiary is not proceeding from some sort'a prejudiced state; Morrella certainly exhibits one such.)

Well, naturally enough and obviously, I don't see the Morrella issue Webdiary's way. My raison d'être in blogging is justice via truth; one of either Paul Morrella or Jay White (or both) must be fake-IDs; any one of those combinations is in itself both an outright, premeditated lie, as well as being in full violation of Webdiary Ethics.

The truth of the matter is what I seek; if Margo Kingston wants to see that as a challenge to her authority[4] rather that my seeking for truth, then she can stick her authority where it fits best.

Installing Margo Kingston as the ultimate arbiter of the truth? How can that work, if she won't allow truth-seekers to seek - or when a lie is discovered, to speak?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] slander —n. 1 false and damaging utterance about a person. 2 uttering of this. —v. utter slander about.  slanderous adj. [French esclandre: related to *scandal] [POD]

[2] libel —n. 1 Law a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. b act of publishing this. 2 false and defamatory misrepresentation or statement. —v. (-ll-; US -l-) 1 defame by libellous statements. 2 Law publish a libel against.  libellous adj. [Latin libellus diminutive of liber book] [ibid.]

[3] defame v. (-ming) libel; slander; speak ill of.  defamation n. defamatory adj. [Latin fama report] [ibid.]

[4] authoritarian —adj. favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority. —n. authoritarian person. [ibid.]