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 the town where they live.
In other words, we don't run anonymous op-ed pieces. If you prefer that kind of forum, you can call Sound Off. Or simply comment on a story online.
That is the policy of many newspapers.
The New York Times has a similar policy, one they broke yesterday.
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 letter basically confirms everyone's worst fear about the president, who reportedly has been 'volcanic' since the letter went online yesterday afternoon.
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.
He has ripped the 'failing' New York Times. Ripped the writer as 'gutless.' Branded the action as 'Treason.' And demanded that the Times be compelled to turn over the identity of the writer for national security purposes.
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 will no doubt put the wagons in a circle, saying it confirms the beliefs that some kind of Dark State lurking in the background of an entrenched government bureaucracy is actively trying to take the president down.
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 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.
More than that, they 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, picking him off and using the same tactics to knock 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.
Comments
The decision by the Times to allow the author of an op-ed piece to maintain anonymity was unusual, but not unprecedented. The paper had done so in the past when a writer’s life may have been endangered by what they wrote, a spokesperson said, citing a Salvadorian immigrant’s story from earlier this summer and this 2014 piece by a Pakistani woman living under Taliban rule. But it appears the paper has never withheld the name of an American official writing about his or her own work within the government. Op-ed editor James Dao told the Times’s Michael M. Grynbaum that the exception was made in this case because the author presented “a very strongly, clearly written piece by someone who was staking out what we felt was a very principled position that deserved an airing.”