About that anonymous New York Times letter
The Daily Times has a clear policy when it comes to letters to the editor.
We run them on our op-ed page every day. But we require two things of those who write them - that they use their name, and they list the town where they live. If they so desire, they also can list an email address.
We require a phone number so we can call and verify the letter. Relax, the phone number is not published. I don’t have that luxury. My phone number runs at the bottom of this column every week.
Sometimes we receive a letter or column representing the beliefs of a group of people. In those instances, we usually ask at least one person to put their name on the piece, along with a note indicating how many others or which groups also signed off on their beliefs.
What we do not do is run anonymous letters. At least not on our op-ed page. If you prefer that kind of forum, you can call Sound Off. Not surprisingly, for decades now that has been one of the most popular – and controversial – items in the newspaper. You’d be surprised what people are willing to say when they know their name and possibly their photo will not be sitting right beside it. I sometimes refer to it as the opinion page version of “beer muscles.”
There are a lot of people – including some on my own staff – who believe we have no business offering people this kind of anonymous platform.
Think some of the denizens of Sound Off are out there? You should listen to the hundreds of voice-mails every day that we reject.
Then again, you could just scroll down to the bottom of most any story that appears on our website, DelcoTimes.com. Yes, we also offer readers a forum to respond to the stories we post. And yes, I have problems with some of the venom that literally drips from the keyboards of those who seem to spend the majority of their day in these online debates. And again, I am sure that a crucial part of the ugliness of so much of this online debate is that it for the most part is done anonymously.
My preference would be that these forums would be monitored, that we could act like a gatekeeper and weed out some of this offensive bile before it ever makes it onto our site. Unfortunately, I don’t work in a perfect world. Far from it. It’s a bit like the wild, wild West out there. Comments flow freely. If you are offended by something you see posted, and I assure you I am just about every day, you can alert us and we will review those comments.
Just about every day I find myself deleting some of these comments, including those that invariably descend into blatant racism. And it case you have not noticed, just about every story we post eventually comes down to race, at least in terms of online commenting.
Of course, some people believe that their view of me – and this newspaper – as having a distinct liberal bias also shows itself in the way we monitor this online dialog. I assure you that is not the case, and I think I can be pretty confident most will still believe we tilt every conversation to the Left.
Of course this past week the notion of anonymous opinions has been transported to a whole new level.
Most newspapers adhere to the policy of not running anonymous op-ed pieces.
The New York Times has a similar policy, one they obviously broke last week.
The Times took the unprecedented move of publishing an anonymous letter to the editor from a “senior official” within the administration of President Donald J. Trump.
The reaction was about what you would expect, again showing the fissure that divides the country when it comes to our hotel magnate, reality TV show host turned commander-inchief.
For those opposed to Trump, the letter basically confirms a lot of people’s worst fear about the president. For his loyal supporters, it was just the latest effort of the “fake news” and “failing New York Times” to bring down his presidency.
When I posted about it on my blog last week, some of my most ardent Trump backers actually suggested the Times made up the letter, that there was no source, and that this is just the latest evidence of the Dark State working to take the president down.
For some reason I kind of doubt the Times made up the letter. Pass the tinfoil hats, folks. Yeah, we’re in that territory here.
The letter writer described him or herself as part of the “resistance” inside the White House, people close to the president who are there to rein in his wildest impulses, keeping information from him, discounting his most outrageous plans, and literally intercepting key material meant for the commander-in-chief.
Trump reportedly has been “volcanic” since the letter was published. He has blasted the ‘failing’ New York Times. Ripped the writer as “gutless.” Branded the action as “Treason.” Demanded that the Times be compelled to turn over the identity of the writer for national security purposes. And even gone so far as to suggest Attorney General Jeff Sessions turn the Justice Department dogs loose on the Times in the effort to identify the writer.
The letter has been the talk of D.C. – and really the nation – all week. One by one, Trump’s top staff have taken turns denying they were the author, while the pundits have had a field day guessing who penned the blockbuster.
Here is my take on the letter. I have two reactions, neither of them good.
In terms of the Times decision, I will tell you that I know from personal experience that it was not an easy one, nor one they take lightly.
It seems to me two things are possible here.
Trump’s supporters have put the wagons in a circle, saying it confirms their belief that there is some kind of Dark State lurking in the background of an entrenched government bureaucracy that is actively trying to take the president down. I don’t think that’s the case, but I don’t deny a lot of people do.
On the other hand, if you believe what was in the letter, the outlook is equally as bleak. It appears that something akin to a coup has taken place, that a few key aides close to the president are actually running the country, making sure the president does not go completely off the rails.
That’s not the way this is supposed to work. That’s not what is laid out in the Constitution. No one voted for this cabal. They voted - whether you agree with them or not - for Donald Trump. Or at least the Electoral College did.
More than that, the letter write made clear that some of the people closest to the president who cringe with every Tweet believe they are doing a service by not resigning, that they might be the only ones standing between the White House and complete chaos.
Finally, I am reminded of these words:
A “chaos candidate” who will be a “chaos president.” Sound familiar?
They were mouthed by Jeb Bush during the campaign for the Republican nomination in 2016.
Trump, of course, mocked Bush as “low energy,” kicking off a series of caustic nicknames he applied to anyone who got in his way, knocking off one foe after another who stood between him and the White House.
Someone once said, “Keep your friends close. And your enemies closer.”
For Donald Trump, that does not seem to be a problem.