Earlier this evening I received a comment which I immediately approved for publication.  I thought it was a very good and welcomed inquiry.  It was such a good comment that I've decided to highlight this in my blog posting and also include my response.

Why do I think this is so great?  Because this comment reinforces the mission of Ramapo Times and our obligation to the community that we serve.  It also raises some thought-provoking questions in my mind.

Mr. Castelluccio has every right to ask these questions (see below) and to express his opinions.  I appreciate that he did so in a respectful and forthright manner although I still would have published his comments had they been less than professional.  He also addressed the issues and he signed his name which I feel shows a great deal of courage in an era where it is very easy to take shots at people anonymously. 

I know absolutely nothing about this man.  I don't know who he is, where he lives, what his background is, who or what he supports nor who or what he opposses.  I don't feel attacked personally; this gentleman had some legitimate questions & suggestions and he expressed them.  

Hopefully my reply was as professional as Mr. Castelluccio's comment. 

I may not be correct in the way I've choosen to handle press releases.  My thinking is that I know who is behind the press release--usually this is self evident by simply reading the headline, but I don't usually know exactly who actually wrote the press release.  The software we use requires us to select an 'author'.  My thinking is as follows: delivering the information with our default byline of "Website Administrator"  meaning that no identifiable person receives credit is better than attributing the article to someone who didn't actually write it.

In some instances we have received press releases where it appears to have been written by a clearly identifiable individual based upon the name on the letterhead.  In these cases, we have identified the individual as the author.

This blog posting isn't really about if I've made the correct choice or not.  The point here is this; Mr. Castelluccio and I engaged in a respectful dialog.  Addressing issues and expressing opinions in an open, honest and objective fashion moves our community forward.  Relationships remain intact and the ability to find common ground in order to work toward the common good is preserved. 

My opinion?  I think that it would be fantastic if those seeking elected office this fall would commit to attacking the issues and not each other.

Here is Mr. Castelluccio's comment.  My response follows.

A number of the articles, like this one, are written by someone identified only as the Website Administrator. For the sake of openness and to avoid the appearance of hidden agendas, political or otherwise, these should be properly bylined. Your credibility suffers otherwise. 

Michael Castelluccio

My response:

Mr. Castelluccio,

Thank you for your comment; I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to send it to us.  Comments are not only welcome they are encouraged. 

Articles attributed to the "Website Administrator" have usually come from a press release.  Many times we run the press release as-is.  It would be unethical to attribute it to one of our writers or to anyone other than the actual author and the actual author is usually not identified.  Note that we usually attach the logo of the issuing governmental body so that readers have no doubt as to its origin.  If it was sent in by a specific official on their letterhead then we attribute the article to that specific person.  As an aside, “Website Administrator” is the default in our software and from time-to-time we have not properly attributed an article but are quick to rectify the situation when it’s brought to our attention.

As far as openness is concerned, please note that we accept and publish items from the Community at large provided that five simple rules are followed:

1.  Tell us who you are

2.  Keep it clean

3.  Keep it fair 

4.  Keep it honest

5.  Keep subjective personal attacks to yourself

We have no interest in providing an anonymous forum for people to attack others.  Issues should be attacked, not people.  If people wish to hide behind the anonymity afforded by the Internet, we encourage them to launch their attacks and hide elsewhere.  There are many other forums available for that purpose.

As far as credibility is concerned I'm not sure that we have a credibility problem.  We've somehow attracted more than 22,000 email subscribers to our online publication in just over three months.  I don't really know where they've all come from but people are forwarding our articles and they seem to like the fact that their children can safely read and contribute to our publication.  They also seem to like the fact that we don't push any political agenda.  I believe that you would be hard pressed to find another publication that doesn't have a slant one way or the other. 

For example, in the next few weeks we're asking all candidates seeking political office in our area to submit a 500 word bio that follows our guidelines outlined above and that also includes their vision for our community.  We want to inform our readers and allow them to make their own decisions; we won't endorse or oppose anyone or any party.  

Regards,

Richard Gandon                                                                      

Publisher 646-202-9539