Over the weekend, I received via snail mail an anonymous letter. The writer appears to be a Norfolk citizen who is concerned about certain things going on. Based on inquiries that I made, it appears that the writer’s concerns deserve an airing. Given that this person went to the trouble to track down my home address, s/he obviously believes that I would post it.
If our local paper had received such a letter, it seems that they would not post it (LTE policy here). This blog isn’t a newspaper, though, although I have tried to maintain some level of (as I see them) journalistic standards.
So I’m asking you, dear reader: should I post this anonymous letter? Vote in the poll, which will close at midnight, and leave your comments below.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Viv, aren’t a lot of your comments here already anonymous? I’m willing to bet that Anon E. Mouse isn’t his/her real name. The standards here (and in the rest of the internet) have always been different than in print newspapers.
There’s a difference between allowing anonymous comments and using anonymously authored content as the basis for a post, Jeff.
I think it’s one of those things where you should post it if, as you said, your inquires into it seem to suggest that there’s some truth to what the writer is saying. You could always make sure people simply know that it was an anonymous letter you received.
Also, you could always show the letter to whomever it is about and then ask for their comment and post their reaction as well as the letter.
I think it is really up to you. Seems to me this person is trying to use you as a means to an end. So, are you willing to be the vehicle? And are you in agreement with the end?
Of course, the not knowing piques my interest. Could it ruin someone’s career? Does it involve allegations of misconduct, fraud, illicit affairs? On what order of magnitude is this?
I say post it. Your readers will take the anonymity of the author into account when judging the letter.
Hi –
I think that you should post the letter in its entirety, but with a oucple of caveats:
1. If there are allegations of wrongdoing by, or aspersions on the characters of, specific individuals, get yourself a primer on libel law if you don’t have that knowledge already. Allowing anonymous comments by others is not the same as you publishing content that was submitted anonymously. Many newspapers will publish LTEs anonymously, but they almost always require that the writer identify themselves to the newspaper.
2. Retain the letter, the envelope it came in, and everything associated with it. You may need it if something in the letter blows up in your face.
Having said all that, I’m intrigued, and I don’t even live in Norfolk or on the East Coast (AZ here).
If you think that the letter has the appropriate verisimilitude, go for it.
BTW – Thank you. That’s the first time in my life that I’ve been able to use the word “verisimilitude” in a sentence that wasn’t just discussing the word itself. :))
If you can’t put your name by it, it’s not worth printing.
Vivian, You are not creating the news just reporting it. No one should shoot the messenger.
“If our local paper had received such a letter,” … seems to be the operative term … they would not publish it but an editor might turn it over to a reporter to follow-up on … you as the publisher, editor, and reporter gets to decide what to do with the info … and I trust your judgement to take the appropriate action …
I voted no, because I’m with Shaun on this one. We’ve discussed the issue repeatedly over the years, and are of one mind on it. The tendency seems to be that, the more scurrilous the allegations, the more likely anonymity follows.
On the other hand, you seem to have done some independent investigation (which, I suspect, a newspaper would have done, were the allegations newsworthy), and a question of endorsement seems to arise at this point. The issues — if important, which I presume that they are — would have more credibility if you were to discuss them, since you would be attaching your credibility to them. For the reasons I stated above, allegations published under a cloak of anonymity tend — more often than not, rightfully — to be dismissed on that basis.
Of course, it’s your blog, and therefore, your decision.
If you publish the letter, the author is trading on your credibility.
I would not publish it at Tidewater Liberty UNLESS there was good reason for the person to shield his identity, such as a city employee whistle-blowing on a superior AND there was some way for me to verify the contents had a least some basis in truth AND the matter was worthy of public scrutiny.
Are you bringing an important matter to the public attention, or abetting a coward in maligning an enemy?
I would print information about malfeasance, but I would not publish gossip about an affair, no matter how much I disliked those involved.
I hope that helps.
Just remember, YOUR name will be attached to whatever you publish from an anonymous source.
It depends on the content of the letter, is it going after someone personally, or is it complaints about government, or the process? If you start posting letters like that, you are going to be getting a mail box full!
If the letter contains things that could result in the sender being subjected to retaliation, I’d suggest that you consider 1. paraphrasing the content of the letter or 2. try to do a little invesigative journalism or 3. pass the information on to an investigative journalist outside of the area (Richmond or Washington?) or 4. pass the information on to an district attorney that does not have ties with those involved. Your recent comments about the Stolles and Joe Bouchard clearly indicate that retaliation is an unfortunate issue with a lot of people besides the sender of this letter.