Inside the Royal Gazette

An anonymous letter to the Editor appears in the 28 March edition of the Royal Gazette (RG). The letter writer, who signs him/herself “For an open and free press” takes to task the Premier and others who complained about the RG’s coverage of the three Regiment soldiers arrested for marijuana possession. The letter writer does an analysis of that entire issue of the RG in order to show that the complaints were unfounded.

I have my own opinion about the fairness of the RG’s coverage, which I will leave for another time. However, my reason for this post is to comment solely on the issue of anonymous writers-to-the-Editor. Yes, I know, I am going to hear from quite a few in defense of the practice. I am not saying that no one should ever write anonymously. It does seem to me, though, that the writer of such a thorough and constructive presentation of the RG’s page by page content would have little reason to do so anonymously, unless…

Without a signature, one could reasonably speculate that the writer was the Editor himself, or that he assigned one of his reporters to do the job. (The letter does seem to be from the pen of someone who has more than a passing interest in defending the RG.) Of course editors have every right to defend the integrity of their papers. They should, however, do so forthrightly. If the writer of the letter is someone associated with the newspaper, what is to gain by hiding it?

One possible gain is the same letter writer could pen multiple letters using different pen-names, thus creating an image of widespread support for a single point of view. Another is the additional weight given to support from writers outside the organisation in question — one tends to assume a writer would declare interest if one existed.

One could also speculate that the letter writer is a political partisan and is using the opportunity to score partisan points. Other speculations of a racial or ethnic bias could also creep in, justified or not.

I accept there are times when anonymity is warranted, for example if a Civil Servant was blowing the whistle on unethical or illegal conduct (though I would prefer this be handled by codified protection for whistle-blowers). However, the use of anonymity to thwart transparency is, in my view, a relic of darker times, and should be abandoned.

Comments

[Anonymous on 29.03.06 at 14:01]

I agree without reservation.

Nah.

[Triforce on 29.03.06 at 14:43]

Yeah, I don't know about that one. Speculation that the letter writer may be an inside person at the Gazette may have merits but again it's only speculation. One could speculate that the writer merely just wants the opportunity to express his or her views without being harrassed the next day on the streets by people who know him/her.

What's the current stance on publishing anonymous letters to the Gazette? As long as it's not libellous then it's okay?

[jake on 29.03.06 at 14:45]

I think your point is well made, and well observed. The RG article about Dr. Johnson, head of the Road Safety Council who had run a stoplight and owed back taxes in the US bothered me for the same reason that people were complaining about the Gazette. It is the emphasis we place on things that are petty - a front page article and headline in both instances, where it is not called for.

All in all I think the writer's point was a fair one, in that when people say that the RG "never" writes positive articles they state the case too high (thereby weakening it). I would not be surprised if it were a RG inspired letter, however.

One thing is for sure, the word limit was certainly waived.

[Michael Taylor on 29.03.06 at 15:14]

Great piece Stuart, and I think something that we really needed to be reminded of! You have well pointed out many of the reasons we should limit what we infer from anonymous opinion pieces. I think it should be noted however, that in the RG objectivity letter, revealing the facts seemed to be the author's main goal, and these were easily verifiable without knowing the author's identity.

I have been thinking about this subject a lot lately, and I think there may actually be some good reasons people still use pseudonyms, although most of the time people are just too chicken to use their real name.

I have heard a few posters insist that folks have nothing to be afraid of for speaking up but I don't think that's necessarily true for everyone. For example, I doubt all employers love having outspoken or controversial employees. Controversial, high-level employees could scare off some closed-minded or spiteful clients who are averse to working with people with strongly opposing views.

Other than fear, there are several legitimate reasons people would post with a pen name. Below are four that I can think of:

1)They wish to share details/anectdotes of their family life but do not wish to damage their family members' privacy.

2)It is an offence for most members of the military to discuss many aspects of the Bermuda Regiment, but they may have justifiable motives for doing so.

3)People may wish to reveal non-confidential industry-specific facts they are familiar with because of their professions but do not want to risk raising concerns among their clients about their confidentiality.

4)If they use their real name they will find it almost necessary to defend themselves from libellous and incorrect responses which are all too common place. They may not have the time to devote to this and would rather post anonymously and ignore accusations and rantings from the odd loonie toon out there.

My opinion is that anonymous writers do still have their place but everyone needs to realise that there are severe limitations to the credibility that can be attached to this kind of writing.

[stuart J Hayward on 29.03.06 at 15:24]

Triforce writes:
"I don't know about that one. Speculation that the letter writer may be an inside person at the Gazette may have merits but again it's only speculation."

You are correct. And, I admit, the speculation may say as much about the speculator as about speculatee

"One could speculate that the writer merely just wants the opportunity to express his or her views without being harrassed the next day on the streets by people who know him/her."

No doubt there are benign reasons for anonymity, and some that are above board and legit.

"What's the current stance on publishing anonymous letters to the Gazette? As long as it's not libellous then it's okay?"

As I recall, the policy is printed on the editorial page and says something like: letters will be printed with pseudonyms, if so requested, provided that the bona fide name of the author accompanies the letter.

[SmokingGun on 29.03.06 at 15:25]

Stuart - I agree. There are many newspapers that will not publish a letter unless accompanied by a bonafide name. That's why you'll never see SmokingGun in a newspaper but you might well see his alter-ego.

That's unless he chickens out of course..... m
' '
V

[loki on 29.03.06 at 15:29]

" think your point is well made, and well observed. The RG article about Dr. Johnson, head of the Road Safety Council who had run a stoplight and owed back taxes in the US bothered me for the same reason that people were complaining about the Gazette."

I'm glad I wasn't the only one: there was definitely something about that article that troubled me. Here's a guy who, by all accounts, is very well-meaning and, basically, a decent person, volunteering his time to be chairman on the Road Safety Council, and they basically tried to do a hatchet job on him over very petty issues, indeed.

I know PLENTY of otherwise upstanding people in the US and Canada who owe back taxes, usually as a result of a reassessment by the IRS or CRA. Just because you owe back taxes doesn't mean that you've tried to defraud the government, and it certainly isn't a matter of great public interest.

[stuart J Hayward on 29.03.06 at 15:40]

Michael Taylor writes:
"My opinion is that anonymous writers do still have their place but everyone needs to realise that there are severe limitations to the credibility that can be attached to this kind of writing."

You pose some acceptable reasons for anonymity. However, given the mischief that can be done by an open policy, I would opt for a selective policy: if there is a "legitimate reason" for anonymity then it will be permitted (of course the legitimacy is a judgment call, but I could live with that),

And how would you deal with a newspaper that publishes anonymous letters attacking someone or something, but then doesn't publish signed letters written in defense? (This is not a hypothetical question.)

[SmokingGun on 29.03.06 at 15:44]

And how would you deal with a newspaper that publishes anonymous letters attacking someone or something, but then doesn't publish signed letters written in defense? (This is not a hypothetical question.)

Posted by stuart J Hayward on 29.03.06 at 15:40

You call someone like loki. ;)

[stuart J Hayward on 29.03.06 at 15:57]

For the record, I believe that Royal Gazette Editor Bill Zuill is ethically above writing anonymous letters in his own paper. I should have made this clear in my original post. My speculations were merely for the sake of the argument.

[Bill Zuill on 29.03.06 at 16:04]

My reason for this post is to comment solely on the issue of anonymous posters to Limey in Bermuda. Yes, I know, I am going to hear from quite a few in defence of the practice. I am not saying that no one should ever write anonymously. It does seem to me, though, that the writers of such thorough and constructive posts on the issues of the day would have little reason to do so anonymously, unless…
Without a signature, one could reasonably speculate that the writer was the Limey himself, or that he assigned one of his associates to do the job. ...
One possible gain is the same poster could pen multiple posts using different pen-names, thus creating an image of widespread support for a single point of view. etc etc

OK, seriously and for the record, the writer of the letter is in no way associated with The Royal Gazette.
As for the idea that I have so little integrity that I would do it myself and not put my name to it ... or that I would have one of my reporters do it (or that they would agree to do it), well, it leaves me speechless and I am mortified that my old friend Stuart would think so little of me that he would even speculate on that point.

[SmokingGun on 29.03.06 at 16:13]

Nice timing Stuart! ;)

[Rossini on 29.03.06 at 16:21]

Mr Zuill you can feign all the righteous indignation you like.....I think you do an excellent job trying to look as if you're trying to look like you're impartial...but the one day wonders like your story on Dr. Johnson reveal the truth about the RG.

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 16:23]

There are very valid reasons for a variety of people writing using a pen name.

Some are prevented by nature of their profession police and prison officers comes to mind among others.

Of course non Bermudians are unwise to do so given past experiences of job dismissal etc and being then obliged to leave Bermuda as a result.

The fact that certain children at school have been endangered and the wives of writers have been harrassed in their workplace would all be valid reasons in my opinion.

As a former employee of the Bda Press it would be my guess that in most instances where there was criticism of the newspaper that in my experience the editor would use his position to defend his position and while possible he would hide under a pen name in my op. thats a bit of a stretch.

Many articles are put together very quickly and to fill headlines in a rush often results in often ill thought out headlines I feel.

However its very easy to sit on the side and criticise when one dislikes the exposure that upsets them and quite another to understand the nature of deadlines and the frailities of human nature.

I say this as a very strong critic of the newspaper policy of the RG whose very strong support of the war on Iraq and its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine land as my many letters on the subject substantiate.

I always advise people who are going to use their own name to think very carefully of the possible consequences of such exposure and not to be goaded into doing so on the basis of accusations of cowardice etc. one has to consider not only themselves but others involved in their lives.

In my opinion no one should be allowed to make personal attacks while using a pen name and generally I think this is observed but I recall one person who attacked my character and motives in a particularly virulent manner in many times the allotted usual length a one Mr Roth I entitled " The Gripes of Roth" that I was unable to defend against, that was quite wrong I feel.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 29.03.06 at 16:31]

Or, perhaps, Rossini, Bill Zuill's indignation isn't feigned and THAT is the truth about the RG.

Of course, my opinion doesn't count, but in my experience with Mr. Zuill, he has been honorable and even-handed. It's easy to shoot him down though. He's an easy target, so go ahead and make suppositions.

[Martin on 29.03.06 at 16:48]

Stuart

If a letter was tending to the libelous for example and was signed, do you know what the RG's position is either in law or in policy concerning the (allegedly) libled person?

In short - can they insist/force the RG to give up the detail?

Seems to me that if the RG cannot be made to divulge it's contributors, then to sign a letter with any of the reasonably well known names in Bermuda, is a waste of time.

As an example, how many Outerbridges are there...etc, etc. Where would one start?

[Rossini on 29.03.06 at 16:48]

Your Excellency, one does not have to assume, suppose or otherwise with Mr. Zuill. HIs sins are laid bare daily. He is an easy target by choice. Surely printing stories about his reporters' drunk driving or the like qualify as evenhandedness. How about his gem of a response having been caught out on his diatribe about government credit cards.....it amounted to..."we may have been wrong and eventhough we didn't do any research...someone from Finance should have called his immediately to correct us....". That is an Agenda...and it ain't social.

[Michael Taylor on 29.03.06 at 16:52]

Stuart,

"You pose some acceptable reasons for anonymity. However, given the mischief that can be done by an open policy, I would opt for a selective policy: if there is a "legitimate reason" for anonymity then it will be permitted (of course the legitimacy is a judgment call, but I could live with that)"

That could work. The fact that it involves a judgement call made by a human IS a notable drawback. I guess the question to me is,"What is better?:
a)ban most anonymous writers and allow an editor or blog administrator to judge the legitimacy of a plea for anonymity, opening the door to bias on the judge's part.
or
b)leave the policy as is and have faith that the public is capable of some critical thinking with regards to opinion pieces(and all media for that matter). The drawback here is the public in general may be poorly equipped to make accurate judgement calls about the information most readily available to them.".
I don't know the answer to that question, so I would be willing to accept either method at the moment.

"And how would you deal with a newspaper that publishes anonymous letters attacking someone or something, but then doesn't publish signed letters written in defense? (This is not a hypothetical question.)"

Wow! I think this may be a slightly different matter. A more serious one at that. If it was the Gazette it would be in clear violation of their stated policy of not allowing attacks under pen names. Is there anything that can be done? I think if that happened to me I would write a letter to the editor of a competitor to expose the offender, but that would hardly right the personal damage done. How would/did you deal with it?

I think we need to recognise that media bias is natural and can never be totally eliminated when we seek ways of combating it. I have believed for some time that Critical Thinking courses should be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum. All citizens of our media rich world need these kind of skills not just a few university/college grads.

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 16:59]

Why should we be more interested in the identity of the writer rather than the message ?

In my op. there is a case for all letters to be anonymous so that one is not distracted or biased by the identity.

Some who use their own name are egotistical rather than ethical possibly who knows ?

[RedOnion on 29.03.06 at 17:00]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would the RG use the Letters to the Editor column and sign anonymously when they are perfectly entitled to defend the allegation against them?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.03.06 at 17:14]

While on the odd, very odd, occasion the RG has not printed one of my many letters a phone call to Bill Zuill usually gets it printed.

The issue I have with the RG is that it states that any letter that is a personal attack will not be printed under a pen name. However, this policy seems to be waived at the discretion of Mr. Zuill. My view is policy is policy and it a letter has a personal attack (elected or sitting political figures aside) Mr. Zuill should not print the letter unless it is signed. To claim that it is publc interest is, in my view, nonsense.

There have been a few occasions where my letters have been attacked under a pen name. Why should I entertain these people if they don't have the enough guts to sign their name to their attacks. I should have the right to know who my attacker is, should I not? After all I am a private citizen not an elected or sitting politician.

With regard to the above mentioned letter writer, I think he/she took one days paper in isolation. The RG is really no different from any other media house when it puts the negatives on the front page. Shock value sells papers.

[JJ on 29.03.06 at 17:21]

Soldiers getting caught smuggling drugs is news, at least for Bermuda's news starved media. They've committed a crime.
Soldiers performing drill, exercises, training manoevers etc is what they are supposed to do for Christ's sake! That's not news.
When they have performed above and beyond the call of duty the RG has reported it, and rightly so.

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 17:24]

A personal attack is is valid if it is easily substantiated and not libelous.

When one puts themselves on the public forum thats a risk they assume.

They should be accorded the opp to defend their position but are not entitled to protection.

If one was a 90lb weakling and made a derogatory remark albeit a truthful one about a 250 lb bully they would be very foolish to print their own name unless they had a death wish !!!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.03.06 at 17:25]

JJ,

But it is highly unlikely that a BR soldier performing above and beyond would be placed on the front page. The front page is what sells the paper.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.03.06 at 17:31]

Bill,

No one is asking for protection. I can defend myself.

I agree that if one puts his views and opinion in the public forum he should expect feedback both negtaive and positive. However, if someone makes a personal attack on me through the media my attacker should have to do so under his real name. Especially when the newpaper states that personal attackers will not be printed when a pen name is used.

[Rossini on 29.03.06 at 17:31]

Just think, if some entrepeneur would enter this market and give us a credible alternative to the RG we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The RG would be forced to change its ways just to keep up.....ask American Airlines how the "jet Blue" therapy they've had has helped them get real.

[SmokingGun on 29.03.06 at 17:33]

Guilden - if the story warranted it surely it would. With regard to importing drugs it should always get front page no matter who, especially if it's on tax payer's time. Who paid for their airline ticket?

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 17:40]

Guilden I believe I covered that in the last paragraph of my original post above.

I have been attacked "here" frequently by people who wont sign their own name and in a particularly vile manner but like you I am more than capable of holding my own because I have had a lot of experience both by the open and honest and the cunning and devious wolves in sheeps clothing !!

Rossini great idea competition is healthy if you can get support for the first ten million start up money our hearts and wallets will quickly follow possibly !!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.03.06 at 17:40]

SmokingGun,

I guess that's where we differ. I would prefer to see positive stories on the front page as opposed to negative.

Its like the old joke goes:

Smile and no one will notice
Cry and no one will see the tears

But FART once....

The negatve news sells papers.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.03.06 at 17:47]

Bill,

In my view, the difference between the press and these blogs is that you can respond immediately through a blog such as this. The newspaper will print your letter when there is space, which means in many instances you have very little means to defend yourself.

[Michael Taylor on 29.03.06 at 17:48]

If memory serves me correctly there are quite often positive stories about the regiment on the front page of the Gazette, particularly while two-week camps are on. Can anyone verify this? I am having a hard time finding out with their on-line archives.

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 17:52]

Very true Guilden thats why I use this forum so much as its a better forum and less resrticted but regrettably has a smaller audience.

In the final analysis the editor reserves the right to select what he prints and that is where I think its quite wrong particularly in the instance of a personal attack because it is a form of censorship in my op.

[J Starling on 29.03.06 at 18:17]

Concerning the Regiment soldiers - I don't have a problem with the RG reporting the three idiots, but I don't know why they chose to put it on the front page and why they chose to only run it about four of five days following the event - of which they were aware of at the time. Also, as a now former regiment soldier, I don't know why they put this small thing on the front page when while some of us were slogging it in Cayman and Grenada following the hurricanes we barely made it past page four.

Sorry, needed to get that off my chest. As for anomynous writers, I agree with Mr. Hayward and Mr. Taylor here, they should only be allowed in certain circumstances. No one should be afraid to speak their mind. Most of the fear that exists is more of a hangover from the past, today it is more phantom than material. I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me - I'm quite used to it, but I do like to know that my detractors have the courage of their convictions to sign their name to it. True, at the end of the day it is a small thing, but it does annoy me from time to time. As long as they put some thought into the pseudonym I'm pretty cool with it.

[JJ on 29.03.06 at 18:18]

GG
I'm pretty sure that the good news about the regiment has been front page. i.e. during Fabian and I think when they helped out in th Carribean. If not front page then a special insert..
Anyways, my inital point was aimed more at the PM's dozy comments about this issue on the TV news. He was bemoaning why the RG had not reported the wonderful performance of the troops in carrying their packs and going without a shower blah. blah....blah.... That's not news. That's just what soldiers do in training.

On a slightly separate note, I do think it's great that a journalist of Stuart Hayward's statue and experience has finally recognised this blog as a medium worth contributing to, as opposed to just writing articles in the normal course of business in the weeklys.

[SmokingGun on 29.03.06 at 18:56]

Guilden - I think we both agree that good news is what is considered appropriate and informative news. Unfortunately sometimes it's not always going to be happy news. If there is happier news to report I too would hope it makes the front page. In fact the RG often has a feel good photo and caption usually involving a picture of a cat, dog or kid. But is that news?

On the other hand in the US papers the front page usually has article after article on how many troops or Iraqi civilians were killed yesterday. The happier news about the new school that was just dedicated or the hospital that was completely re-furbished with modern equipment? Wait till the Sunday edition. The thing is after a while the schools and hosptital stuff become important news because people want to see some good coming out of the actions of their contry. But when? The decision rests completely in the hands of the Editors.

But getting back to the subject at hand. In my opinion, if someone is attacking someone in a personal manner, wether it be in a newspaper or on a blog they should have the courtesy to do so in the same vein and use their real name. After all an anonymous shot at an anonymous writer/blogger means nothing.

[Michael Taylor on 29.03.06 at 19:06]

Starling,

You wrote,
"As for anomynous writers, I agree with Mr. Hayward and Mr. Taylor here, they should only be allowed in certain circumstances."

That's not exactly my position. I'm just not opposed to it.

[Bill Cook on 29.03.06 at 19:25]

Smoke

One would need to have a very unique sense of humour to really believe that any US media source would give Iraqui civilian casualities numbers just as it wont give US wounded numbers.

Getting the truth requires work and most people are lazy certainly too lazy to do actual research so are easily manipulated just as they deserve to be.

I have found that some sources like The Christian Science Monitor to be good but not as easy as CNN and Fox news etc.
The Jewish World Review and the Palestine Chronicle have certainly differing views but it is up to the individual to do his or her own research by getting off their lazy asses and going to work.

After listening to various views on the ME situation I feel sure not many do just that.

I have spent over 4 yrs in study joined orginisations etc and even if am a slow learner have confidence that most people are ill informed and it is depressing.

[Andrew on 29.03.06 at 19:31]

Let's face it. We all expected the soldiers to get busted for bringing pot back from Jamaica. The question was not "if" but "how many". The Royal Gazette putting it on the front page just made it easier to answer "how many" without digging deep into the paper.

[ap on 29.03.06 at 20:07]

People write anonymous letters critising the government because of the character of this government. They routinely make vailed threats against anyone or any organization that questions them. I think people feel that it's just not worth the chance, no matter how remote, that someone in the government will pardon my language, decide to fuck with them. This is especially true if you work or have relatives with the same last name, that work for the government.

[hypocrit on 29.03.06 at 20:16]

Mr. Hayward has an axe to grind with the Royal Gazette/Mid Ocean News that he would be wise to declare. Care to reveal your indiscretions during the election campaign of the early 90s Mr. Hayward or shall I?

Mr. Hayward's motivations are entirely germaine to this discussion and his constant attempts to disparage RG/MON.

[PorKy on 29.03.06 at 20:22]

First of all Scott doesn't give a shit about the regiment, if he did he'd do something about the ramshackle way it's run, beginning with the total lack of disilpine, and inept behaviour from the so called officers downward. He used that report to fuel his ongoing battle against the press and the RG in particular. Scott wants a press that kisses his ass and declares everything he does is just great, just like the corrupt autocrats in most of Africa, the Middle
East and increasingly Russia. If he could get independence, you could kiss the RG goodbye.

[His Excellency, Uncle Elvis II on 29.03.06 at 20:35]

Here we go again with the PLP is as bad as Mugabe crap.

Can we just nip that in the bud now?

[Silencio on 29.03.06 at 21:27]

That Hester photo album of Dr. Johnson says far more about the RG than that front page article ever could.

As for the anonymous letter, making a defense of the RG's entire journalistic integrity based on what appeared in the newspaper on that particular day is just plain stupid. It was a thesis so paper thin that it didn't merit reading past the first few paragrpahs.

[Bermudacop on 29.03.06 at 21:32]

So in the end no one is concerned with the message (i.e. reading the article and deciding whether or not what the writer was saying was true) lets just shoot the messenger (or make sinister supposisitions about their identity) thats the New Bermuda. I for one will never feel safe posting my name to letters to the editor (I write there under a different name) or even here, especially when Lt.Col. Burch feels free to threaten peoples livelihood just for questioning him.

[tilti on 29.03.06 at 22:10]

"As for the anonymous letter, making a defense of the RG's entire journalistic integrity based on what appeared in the newspaper on that particular day is just plain stupid" silencio
But that wasn't really the issue. The author of the piece was directly challenging the notion the the paper "never" prints positive stories, a statement that was spurred by this particualr story about the regiment. Wouldn't it then be a fair tactic to analyze the exact edition of the RG that the particular story was from to discredit this inane notion? What exactly would one the editorial board have to do for you to accept them?

[Silencio on 29.03.06 at 22:31]

I think the real issue is whether or not RG has a UBP/conservative agenda and not whether or not the complainers were exaggerating. The anonymous writer focused on the latter, and the proof provided was demonstrating a very myopic point. Well, they wrote about Dandy Town winning the cup - see, here is the proof that RG isn't biased against the PLP. Un huh - stupid anonymous article writer, chasing a myopic point. Waste of my time.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 29.03.06 at 22:52]

ap,

Criticising the government anonymously is not the same as a personal attack on a private citizen. I also believe, maybe one of the lawyers here can advise, that attacks on government and government members could not be labeled as slander but on a private citizen they can be labeled as slander.

[stuart J Hayward on 29.03.06 at 22:52]

Martin writes:
"Stuart, If a letter was tending to the libelous for example and was signed, do you know what the RG's position is either in law or in policy concerning the (allegedly) libled person?"

My understanding is that as the publisher of an offending letter, the RG itself would be the target of the legal action, no matter who the author was. PLease know that I am no expert on legal matters.

[Michael Taylor on 29.03.06 at 23:07]

FOR AN OPEN AND FREE PRESS Wrote:
"Mr. Editor, you clearly stirred up a hornets nest so I decided to read that particular issue of The Royal Gazette, dated 23rd March, from cover to cover to see just how biased you really are against young black men and women, and the PLP Government."

I think this is where he slips up. His evidence cannot determine "how biased" the Gazette is. Too bad, because his counter-argument to the detractors he quotes is still valid. Also, he's not exactly arguing that the Gazette is NOT biased against "young black men and women, and the PLP Government" as some seem to suggest he was.

[stuart J Hayward on 30.03.06 at 00:17]

Michael Taylor writes:
“… The fact that it involves a judgement call made by a human IS a notable drawback. I guess the question to me is,"What is better?:
a)ban most anonymous writers and allow an editor or blog administrator to judge the legitimacy of a plea for anonymity, opening the door to bias on the judge's part.
or
b)leave the policy as is and have faith that the public is capable of some critical thinking with regards to opinion pieces(and all media for that matter). The drawback here is the public in general may be poorly equipped to make accurate judgement calls about the information most readily available to them."

Of your choices, I would opt for a). My ideal would be c) anonymous letters will not be published.

"And how would you deal with a newspaper that publishes anonymous letters attacking someone or something, but then doesn't publish signed letters written in defense? (This is not a hypothetical question.)"

Wow! I think this may be a slightly different matter. A more serious one at that. If it was the Gazette it would be in clear violation of their stated policy of not allowing attacks under pen names.

I’m not sure this was always the policy.

Is there anything that can be done? I think if that happened to me I would write a letter to the editor of a competitor to expose the offender, but that would hardly right the personal damage done.

Locally, most “competitors” have declined to do battle with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel and their paper by the ton. Fortunately, the advent of Blogs allow those of us who don’t own a press to have greater freedom of access to the ears of the public.

How would/did you deal with it? Lick my wounds and prepare for the next round.

“I have believed for some time that Critical Thinking courses should be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum.”

I would support this 100%. Too many people still think/act as if anything appearing in print is guaranteed truth, just as there are still people who believe that whatever the government does must be right.

“All citizens of our media rich world need these kind of skills not just a few university/college grads.”

I agree wholeheartedly.