Dear Editor,
In the light of the exchange between the pen-name letter writer, M Maxwell and the Stabroek News, I reproduce a small part of the New York Times policy on anonymity. [Ed note: the full guidelines were also included but have not been printed.] Both independent dailies – Kaieteur News and Stabroek News – have a stated policy that if letter-writers want to remain anonymous, they must supply proof that they are real persons. But even if they do that, based on the New York Times’ guidelines on anonymity, a newspaper should not encourage the relentless appearance of a particular nameless person.
M Maxwell (not his/her real name) took umbrage at what the Stabroek News did. The paper described M Maxwell as a, “correspondent” after Maxwell’s referred to a document published by the US State Department that showed Venezuela wanted to overthrow the Jagan government in the sixties. This was a curious quarrel. From Maxwell’s perspective it was dangerous for the paper to refer to him using the word, “correspondent” because it put him in the spotlight and this may have caused others to pursue him/her which may eventually have led to him/her being unmasked.
Maxwell wrote that he/she objected to the use of the word, “correspondent” and was merely a letter-writer. The Stabroek News for its part is getting into bizarre territory. Why does it want to make people think that Maxwell is real? Why could it not have stated that the document reference was sent to it? And just leave it at that. The fact that they printed Maxwell’s name leaves readers to think that there is a real person named M Maxwell. Why is the Stabroek News encouraging a fictitious name over such a long period of time? I hope the Stabroek management reads the NY Times’ position which I have provided.
Why has the Stabroek encouraged M. Maxwell for so long (in fairness to Kaieteur, it hasn’t showed the same attitude to Maxwell). The Stabroek is not a Johnny Come Lately. It is a fine newspaper of sound quality that can do without the moral hypocrisy of M Maxwell. The Stabroek can get a plethora of missives to fill its daily letter columns.
It is mysterious why the paper is so enamoured with Maxwell who has cast aspersions on every politician from every political party in Guyana while hiding. Respected media houses like KN and SN should not engage in such silly journalism.
Here is part of a column from the NY Times: “The paper announced a revamped policy for the use of confidential news sources in February 2004. One major change: Before a confidential source makes it into the paper, at least one editor has to know the source’s name. After an internal committee on credibility came up with more recommendations early this year, Bill Keller, the executive editor, further tightened the guidelines for the use of anonymous sources in June. The most notable change: Readers are to be told why The Times believes a source is entitled to anonymity ‒ a switch from the previous practice of stating why the source asked for it.”
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
Editor’s note
I few years ago we requested identification from Mr Maxwell, and he sent his details.
