Wednesday, April 11, 2001

Of signed and unsigned letters, strikes, pilots . . .

By CAL BEVERLY
Publisher

I enjoy a spirited public debate as much as anyone, so I have enjoyed the give and take over the past few weeks about Delta pilots and their potential strike against one of Atlanta's business giants.

Other than planning to book vacation flights this summer on another airline, up until now I didn't think I had a hand in this pot. But several folks, mostly pilots or spouses, have called and written to object to my decision to print unsigned letters related to the threatened strike.

My aside last week mentioned the long and occasionally honorable history of unsigned and anonymous letters appearing in print on matters of public debate. Timothy Parker, in the letter opposite, chides me for putting anti-strike letters in the same bag with some of our Founding Fathers' Federalist missives.

I note in passing that my publishing some signed letters last year got me and the newspaper sued for libel, so attaching names to letters is no guarantee in and of itself of making folks happy.

I further wonder in passing whether an unsigned pro-pilots' union letter would have earned me an equal amount of animosity, especially from pilots. Well, never mind, let's deal with letters, pilots, strikes and Delta.

I love letters to the editor. They are my favorite part of the paper. I relish folks having their say on issues, pro, con or otherwise. If I have a bias in this regard, it is to print as many letters as I can from all sides of an issue. I hate to run out of space and have to leave letters out.

Please be assured of this: If there are letters from only one side of an issue printed, it is only because nobody wrote anything for the other side. If any opponents or rebutters had sent in letters, I would be sure to print them. There is NEVER an instance of my choosing to favor one side or writer over another.

I have another weakness: I like to print letters just as the writers wrote them, even if they're long. I admit that some of our letter writers can be long-winded. But I believe if you care enough to write a letter, I ought to try to give you a fair hearing. And to me, that means as little tampering with your prose as I can manage.

Sometimes, space requires me to edit for brevity, but I would rather not. If more people wrote letters to the editor, I would find space to print as many as I could.

I have another preference: I like for writers to sign their names and stand by their opinions. Mr. Parker and I are closer in this regard than he may realize.

There's no telling how many unsigned letters I have tossed in the trash after reading. My general policy is this: Anonymous letters almost never make it in, but occasionally I will allow a writer to withhold the name, provided the writer signs the letter and gives me an address and phone number for verification. If I choose not to withhold the name, then I won't print the letter.

But and there's always a "but." Once in a long while, there arises a topic that calls for public debate. One side is poised for a fight, while the other side is nervously quiet. One side may have passion, while the other side feels dread. The passionate side vigorously presents its case to the public, but little is heard from the other parties to the debate.

Then a letter arrives, opposing the passionate fighters. "Please withhold my name," the writer asks. "I or my family would suffer if you publish my name."

In that case I deliberate these questions.

Would the public be served by publishing this side of the debate? Is the debate of some public importance? Does the letter advance the debate? Does the letter raise issues hitherto unraised or inadequately addressed? Does the letter express a point of view likely to held by some or many on the "quiet" side? Would I publish it if it were signed? Might the writer receive retribution for holding this view, beyond the normal counterpoint replies that will be published? And again, are these issues or this point of view likely to be published in a timely fashion if I trash this particular letter?

After due consideration, I choose whether to publish the letter, with the name withheld.

It was after that deliberation and in that spirit that I chose to publish not one, but two, letters without names in the past two weeks. I don't regret those decisions, and I would do the same things again.

Our letters pages are not just for the powerful and the well-placed, the comfortable and the well-positioned. Our letters pages will be open also to those who feel powerless and threatened and who lack other means of advancing their arguments.

We welcome your opinions. Send them to us via the post office, fax or e-mail. But, please, sign your letter. And then, if you must, make your case why your name should be withheld. And for all others, you are welcome to criticize me next week on these pages for that opinion.

A few other thoughts on pilots and strikes. I think most folks feel the following about Delta pilots striking.

(1) "Let me get this straight. You make over $150,000 a year, and you want to go on strike?!" We've come a long way from those coal mines and the first unions.

(2) "Let me get this straight. My kids can't fly to (fill in the blank) because you can't get your way? And I thought pilots were people who cared about the people who depend on them." Who's acting like a kid now?

My opinion? I think Delta pilots have a lawful right to strike. And I think Delta ought to have the right to fire every one of them. I'm real old-fashioned that way: Folks who are unhappy with their current employer ought to find another employer with whom they will be happy.

I do agree with one statement in pilot Parker's letter opposite. He just doesn't get it. And neither does ALPA. You fliers are just not going to find many non-pilot folks who agree with you or even respect you at the end of a strike. Pilots striking over pay will not find much sympathy among the general public. See if the janitors union will honor your picket line.

Personal likes and dislikes aside, a strike will harm the Atlanta metro area. The area economy, this close to a recession, will take a long time to recover. A strike might fatally wound Delta. At the very least, in today's supercharged competitive climate, Delta might survive as a second-tier airline, always flirting with bankruptcy.

Come on, folks, can that be good for anybody? Are the remaining issues between Delta and the pilots really worth those costs?

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page