komododr

Hi,

I've read a lot of your work and it seems as if you're very close to being a journalist, but maintain the idea that you are not and are only an anthropologist to shift away from having to have ethics in your writings and disclosures. It also feels to be that you coddle to a certain side of the general story of Anonymous - siding with certain forces, rather than questioning the entire story academically. So I'm really confused as to your point.

My question is: Do you really think that giving people one side of the story is effective?

Second question is: Have you tried reaching out to certain people in the story like Sabu to get their actual perspective, or is that not politically correct in this day and age?

Finally: Where does Anonymous the idea go from here? Is it essentially dead? Will a new stronger movement arise from the ashes of this current one?

Thanks

It is interesting that you admit your bias, so I don't see your academic relevancy past your answer. I don't think three interviews is a media tour but from what it seems he is saying there is a much bigger picture to what people like you are actually portraying. I think maybe it's time you stop playing cool mom, and try to study this group of people more thoroughly than simply siding with the side that gives you love, attention and retweets. Thanks

First you admit you have a bias, then you claim you put his perspective in your book but you have yet to even meet this person post-whatever. It seems to me, and others, that you have sort of an agenda in this. Not sure what it is, but it's not honest. What script? are you saying someone has him reading a script? Who? Making these claims imply you know the answers so please help us understand your position.