Guy Wire; a pseudonym

How much value should we place on commentary of someone who will not associate their name with their words?  One wonders more about the reason for anonymity than the opinions expressed by the author, or at least I do. I have been expressing and publishing my views fully and without reservations.  Being outspoken has almost certainly hurt my career and salary potential as a broadcast engineer.  I am okay with that, as every morning when I am shaving, I can look myself in the eye and be thankful for the person who I am.

For myself, until “Guy Wire” tells us who he or she is, there is no absolutely no credibility in those words.  It is a shame that Radio World chooses to publish this commentary.


12 thoughts on “Guy Wire; a pseudonym”

  1. I think the use of pseudonyms vary from publication to publication. It wasn’t until recently that I discovered that the late Tom Knietel authored columns in Popular Communications magazine under the pen name Alice Brannigan, the anagram being “nice gal in a barn.” Of course the occasional photo that accompanied the author byline would have never clued the reader in that “Alice” wasn’t a real person.

    The use of pseudonyms in online forums are usually the worse. I’ve seen my share of chest thumpers claiming to be the expert of this or that but hiding behind some silly or stupid sounding pseudonym. To me, that leads to credibility problems. Whether I agree with a poster’s viewpoint or not, I have more respect for somebody using their real name and not hiding behind an alleged identity.

    Funny enough, I never read the column you reference for pretty much the reasons mentioned. Does s/he really need a fictitious nom de plume?

  2. Why not send an e-mail or write a letter to Paul McLane, the editor of RW, expressing your thoughts? Perhaps the use of that name is just meant to be cute (it IS radio-related) but I agree it is somewhat outdated.

  3. I’m curious as to what provoked such a visceral response on your part? I just went and read the column on the website (my print edition hasn’t yet arrived), and he/she/whomever it is seems to be presenting a clearly stated view with good support for that view (I taught speech once upon a time, so I’m judging based strictly on content and presentation and not based on my own personal opinions as an engineer). The column has been running for quite a while, and it’s quite possible that the author is in fact authors or one in a series of authors. That said, it’s a secondary editorial platform for RW, and I’m guessing it’s there as much as a way to stimulate discussion as it is to promulgate a particular broadcasting worldview.

    So, beyond the actual fact that someone/someone(s) is/are writing under a pseudonym, what is it that prompted you to make a post about it?

  4. Visceral, well I don’t know about that. I am simply, albeit emphatically asking a question. I understand that people sometime use pen names to preserve privacy or to create a more memorable persona. Those cases are seldom used where expert opinion, as in “A veteran Broadcast Engineer” are concerned. Obfuscation makes me suspicious. Common Guy, tell us who you are.

    BTW, I am going to email Paul McLane, but I doubt he will tell.

  5. Forgot about that “guy”. I stopped reading anything from him long ago when he was cheer-leading and making ridiculous statements for Ibiquity.

  6. Here is one instance of Guy Wire lashing out against Bob Savage:

    Big kudos to Bob Savage for taking a stand against IBOC. Also, I emailed the links about Brazil to Paul McLane as soon as the story broke. It will be interesting how the trades spin this story in favor of iBiquity, or there may be no response at all. Who cares, because the Brazilian test results should help to break iBiquity’s back.

  7. Did you ever get any reply from Paul McLane, or did he just ignore your request? Inquiring minds want to know.

  8. @Bob, Doh! I forgot to send it, shot one off this morning, thanks for reminding me. I will let you know what the response is.

  9. Hi Paul – I hope you are well! I didn’t absorb at the time of this earlier discussion that you wanted a response to post here, or I would have replied less hastily. Guy Wire offers but one viewpoint. While his name is intended to be fun, his comments are intended to be provocative — and I understand that some readers are uncomfortable with his use of a pseudonym. But I also openly encourage other points of view, and I work with GW closely to make sure he’s not acting as an iBiquity mouthpiece but rather speaking his own mind as a veteran radio engineer. Clearly, though, many engineers in our industry (and on our own masthead) disagree with his views; and I welcome reader comments about him and about digital radio, pro and con, for publication in our letters page at We also report other digital radio developments, like those in Brazil that Greg mentioned, wherever they might lead. I have also worked with Bob Savage in the past and given him editorial space to discuss his opinions, I found him very cooperative; and just this week I finished editing our latest piece by a fiercely anti-AM IBOC engineer for our opinion pages. Providing space in Radio World for varying opinions is very important to me, even when those opinions come from RW’s harshest critics; that’s something that sometimes is overlooked in the passion of the digital radio debate. Thanks for letting me comment; and keep up the good work here. — Paul McLane, Editor in Chief, Radio World

  10. Hey Paul, I wrote this post some time ago. In hindsight, I should have emailed it to you when I posted it. If, in the future, I do something that mentions Radioworld, I’ll send you a copy. Regarding the post itself, by the comments and offline emails, most people thought I was being too harsh. I suppose I am just curious about the identiy of “Guy Wire.” You are quite correct in stating that Radioworld gives diverse view points on the hot topics in radio broadcasting and fostering a healthy discussion. I welcome this and hope that more voices are heard.

  11. If I recall, Guy Wire got behind IBOC because the only choices at the time way back in the mid-90s were IBOC and Eureka. Without a third feasible alternative available, and with the pressure on in the industry to “go digital”, IBOC was the one that could be implemented given existing technology and be shoe-horned into existing spectrum …without knocking our missles out of the sky every time an Alka-Seltzer commercial came on (Eureka would have had to occupy the same spectrum that U.S. defenses use).

    IBOC ain’t great, but I can understand that a position had to be taken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *