Original post made on Jun 29, 2007
Read the full story here Web Link
on Jun 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm
If we want people in public positions to air their views without fear of repurcussions - then it makes sense to respect one's wish to be anonymous.
If we don't - we may miss out on important opinions.
Two issues to consider are
1. What is the media's role/stand? If a source wants to stay anonymous should we respect that.
2. Are opinions/suggestions more important than the identity of the people suggesting them? If so, we should respect the request to be anonymous in the interest of airing those views/opinions.
on Jun 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I saw nothing wrong with identifying Anne Fox's title despite the misunderstanding that arose. Readers would not otherwise know who the letter writer was and their involvement in what they are writing about. I also saw the situation as Ms. Fox putting herself in this conflicting position by not explicitly stating she was writing as a private citizen.
Anoop, people in public positions are not always at liberty to "air their views" since they are servants of the people (can you imagine the damage if President Bush were to air his personal views?). Most public servants avoid conflict of interest by resigning their posts to pursue activities as private citizens.
on Jul 1, 2007 at 10:04 am
It is nice of you to sound so pompous. But how come you did not come forward to publish this policy several weeks ago when the City COuncil first accused Anne Fox of using her title. No, you waited until the damage was done and then come forward to say "Oh, that is just our Policy". BUt you are willing to run front page stories and editorials criticizing Anne Fox for doing what almost every other commissioner (Matt Sullivan, Brian Arkin, Jerry Thorne) has done in the past...that is work on initiatives that are not in agreement with the city council. How convenient for you.