The Myth of 'Anonymous Emails" Against Obama

Ed Lasky
How often have we seen news reports (like this) that refer to "anonymous emails" regarding Barack Obama? This term is frequently used to characterize any sort of criticisms or questions raised about Barack Obama and to dismiss them if they are circulated on the internet.

The term is part of the lexicon that supporters of Barack Obama -- either in the media or in his campaign -- use to avoid debate or silence criticism. It joins the use of "distraction" by Barack Obama to distract people from legitimate questions raised as well as "smear" and the accusations of  "playing the race card" as part of the tactics the Obama campaign has used to avoid the tarnishing his image.

The term "anonymous emails" makes it seem as if they are somehow disreputable; that people are shamed by sending them.    All are efforts used to denigrate and disparage people who have qualms about a man of limited experience, with a questionable sense of judgment, who may very well become President.

I have yet to receive an email regarding Barack Obama that hid its sender behind an anonymous cloak. The most pointed and relevant questions regarding Barack Obama come from people who readily identify themselves, who regularly post to websites -- such as American Thinker, Commentary, Powerline, Sweetness & Light, Atlas Shrugs, Boker Tov Boulder, Gateway Pundit, Hugh Hewitt, Soccer Dad, Yid with Lid, let alone publications such as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard and many other media outlets. They are not hiding in the netherworld -- such as anonymous emails offering cut-rate pricing of drugs or scams to recover lost money -- of the internet. Instead they are the fruit of thoughtful investigation and analysis that all candidates running for office should face.
 
All of the criticism and questions I have received have come with name tags attached. Criticism has been posted on a wide variety and number of sites. These have provoked, at times, misplaced and unjust-attacks by supporters of Barack Obama. Critics do not hide from such debate; they welcome it.   Why does the media keep referring to "anonymous emails" when these emails have return addresses?  (Google shows almost 200,000 hits for the search terms "Obama" plus "anonymous emails.") Such a practice -- which almost seems a policy when it comes to many in the media -- is merely part of an attempt to censor discussion, to make such commentary seem like "internet mush".

In fact, many questions and stories about Obama may have started on the internet but -- as time has gone on-have become a staple on ABC News (which delved into the Pastor Wright relationship), Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and with an increasing number of high profile commentators who have expressed concern about Senator Obama.  

Those in the media who attempt to stifle discussion are violating their own journalistic ethics and ignoring the importance of a principle they supposedly hold dear: Free Speech.
How often have we seen news reports (like this) that refer to "anonymous emails" regarding Barack Obama? This term is frequently used to characterize any sort of criticisms or questions raised about Barack Obama and to dismiss them if they are circulated on the internet.

The term is part of the lexicon that supporters of Barack Obama -- either in the media or in his campaign -- use to avoid debate or silence criticism. It joins the use of "distraction" by Barack Obama to distract people from legitimate questions raised as well as "smear" and the accusations of  "playing the race card" as part of the tactics the Obama campaign has used to avoid the tarnishing his image.

The term "anonymous emails" makes it seem as if they are somehow disreputable; that people are shamed by sending them.    All are efforts used to denigrate and disparage people who have qualms about a man of limited experience, with a questionable sense of judgment, who may very well become President.

I have yet to receive an email regarding Barack Obama that hid its sender behind an anonymous cloak. The most pointed and relevant questions regarding Barack Obama come from people who readily identify themselves, who regularly post to websites -- such as American Thinker, Commentary, Powerline, Sweetness & Light, Atlas Shrugs, Boker Tov Boulder, Gateway Pundit, Hugh Hewitt, Soccer Dad, Yid with Lid, let alone publications such as the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard and many other media outlets. They are not hiding in the netherworld -- such as anonymous emails offering cut-rate pricing of drugs or scams to recover lost money -- of the internet. Instead they are the fruit of thoughtful investigation and analysis that all candidates running for office should face.
 
All of the criticism and questions I have received have come with name tags attached. Criticism has been posted on a wide variety and number of sites. These have provoked, at times, misplaced and unjust-attacks by supporters of Barack Obama. Critics do not hide from such debate; they welcome it.   Why does the media keep referring to "anonymous emails" when these emails have return addresses?  (Google shows almost 200,000 hits for the search terms "Obama" plus "anonymous emails.") Such a practice -- which almost seems a policy when it comes to many in the media -- is merely part of an attempt to censor discussion, to make such commentary seem like "internet mush".

In fact, many questions and stories about Obama may have started on the internet but -- as time has gone on-have become a staple on ABC News (which delved into the Pastor Wright relationship), Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and with an increasing number of high profile commentators who have expressed concern about Senator Obama.  

Those in the media who attempt to stifle discussion are violating their own journalistic ethics and ignoring the importance of a principle they supposedly hold dear: Free Speech.