Say that again?

I am requesting some clarification. In the Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 edition, you wrote an editorial concerning fairness in the media. One of the statements in that editorial had to do with Letters to the Editor section. You stated that the Saipan Tribune has adopted a policy of not printing anonymous letters. However, in today’s paper, there is a letter that offers his or her opinion from a letter that was in the November 5th edition. And at the end of the letter, it says, “Name withheld by request.” So, what is your policy again? Perhaps it’s that when the letter reaches you, it must have who the author is, etc., but if the author asks their name to be withheld, then you do?

Personally, if this is your policy, I don’t agree with it. I mean, what is this person, or any person for that matter afraid of? To my way of thinking, if you are going to take the time to write a letter stating your opinion of someone else’s opinion, you should have the guts to put your name on it. What Mr. Farrell wrote is his take on the issues. And what this name withheld by request person wrote is their take on the issues.

I’m not sending this to you just so it can be printed. If you choose to print it, that’s totally up to you. I’m only asking for clarification of your policy. Thank you.

Scott A. West
Chalan Kiya

Editor’s Note: If you read that column again, the relevant part states: “…The Tribune has adopted a policy of not printing anonymous letters, particularly those that are critical of persons. If you want to raise an accusing finger, then you should be brave enough to stand by your accusations. At the same time, the paper will not allow itself to be exposed to possible charges of libel, hence any letter with libelous content will never make it to Page 11.” This refers to letters that we have been receiving that impugn the character of a person, while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. These letters would accuse a person or persons of several character defects, of alleged corruption, of alleged favoritism, etc. Not only are they unfair attacks on character or behavior but they would also expose the Tribune to libel, hence the policy. A review of yesterday’s letter show that it was not that kind of letter as it argued a different perspective on a previous letter to the editor. No character was assassinated and it focused on the issue at hand. I hope this clarifies matters for you.