Dissents should not be anonymous

This message is in response to the ombudsman article appearing in the Nov. 8 IDS entitled, "Dissents: useful or useless?" in which I am named as making a "personal attack" on Brian Zell. \nIf in explaining my displeasure at Mr. Zell's "semi-sarcastic explanation ..." (the ombudsman's words) is deemed to be "personal attack" in his opinion ... then so be it. That was not my intent in expressing my opinion at Mr. Zell's "... meager attempt at humor" (his words in an e-mail to me dated Nov. 2). \nFrankly, I was insulted by the editorial and expressed my opinion as such. Writing is an exercise where not everyone will agree with what one has to say or will interpret it as the author might have intended -- particularly in the area of editorials. \nI respect Mr. Zell for having the ability to write dissenting opinions that go against the majority opinion expressed in the staff editorials. Additionally, he gets points from me for identifying himself and not hiding behind the veneer of a "staff editorial" (though in most cases, if there is to be a critique of a staff editorial, the buck usually stops with the editor in chief).\nMr. Zell and I have had a one-on-one e-mail exchange where he took the initiative to contact me and explain his intent and his posture as it relates to Africa and the points he was making in his "ELF dissent" piece. Clearly, what he wrote and how I interpreted were on different pages. I believe he and I are fine on the issue. Further, in no part of our exchange did he express his displeasure, discomfort, or feel that I was "personally attacking" him.\nI would think that as future journalists it would be understood if you write something to be read in the public eye ... however benign or controversial ... know full well that you might get a reaction which will be diametrically opposed to your own. That's called a free press and freedom of speech. And in the real world it might even get nasty and personal. What I wrote is far from that -- but that's my opinion.\nWhat Mr. Zell wrote and how he wrote it in the original piece STILL reads "ignorant, prejudiced and insulting ..." to me. But after he and I had an exchange, I more fully understand his intent and his position. \nIn fact, I would disagree with you, Mr. Hartz. I believe Mr. Zell and I were engaged in a "free and healthy debate of ideas." He stated a position; I responded. There is nothing wrong with the communication process here in my opinion. "Personal attack"... your opinion, but I don't think so. We can agree to disagree on this point.\nIf staff members of the IDS wish to write their dissenting pieces anonymously, I suppose that is their right and can be a policy determined by the IDS. But as a reader in the public, the presumption is that staff editorials are written and more likely "blessed" by the editor in chief. If folks don't like it, they write the editor in chief by name. \nLikewise, a dissenting editorial is written, if the journalist feels strongly enough to write a piece they should be willing to identify themselves. Likewise, the public can write to that person or at least identify them by name.\nYour piece in the IDS brings to mind that old adage, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." In my opinion, if you're going to be a journalist who's going to be respected, whether some members of the public agree with you or not, be willing to stand on your own two feet and identify yourself. And for that reason, Mr. Zell has my respect.\nT. Michael Ford\nSpecial assistant to the vice president and chief financial officer