I was confounded by the column "A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words" [September 26], in which Jennifer Parkinson claimed that the columnists who do not want their photographs to appear in The Dartmouth are unprepared to "stand behind their opinions."
Ms. Parkinson suggested that if the no-photograph position were taken to its logical end, the class or even first name of columnists should also not appear in the newspaper because any such information might induce the reader to presume unjustifiably about the opinions of the columnist. Ms. Parkinson concludes that the criticism of The Dartmouth's policy to print photographs of columnists, in fact, only disguises the columnists' insecurity.
Ms. Parkinson's point exemplifies unethical criticism. From the columnists' comment that their pictures attached to their writings bias their readership, she concludes that those columnists must believe that every feature that biases the readership ought to be eliminated. To put it more simply, she exaggerates the position of those she intends to criticize to make it more attackable.
To have arrived at this absurd conclusion, she is apparently oblivious of another factor, along with unbiasedness, that determines the ideal quantity of the columnist's personal information that ought to be disseminated along with his or her columns. This factor is the extent to which a columnist can abuse the freedom of speech as the result of the incompleteness of information regarding him or her.
Unbiasedness and the likelihood of abuse have an inverse relationship. The more a column is decorated with information pertaining to its writer, the more severe the reader's bias becomes; however, at the same time the possibility of that writer's abuse of his freedom of speech declines. This is because the writer feels increasingly vulnerable as more and more of his or her personal information, which an insidious reader could exploit, becomes readily available.
On the other hand, greater anonymity enhances the devilish allure of the freedom of speech and whetts the latent desire of the writer to slander. Every publication must thus strive to achieve a fine balance to protect the writer and the reader.
For example, an editorial policy according to which one anonymously submits arguments is unsustainable, for nothing would check writers' abuse of the freedom of speech.
Under a policy according to which only the writer's last name accompanies his arguments, the reader is slightly biased because he or she could surmise, for example, the writer's ethnic background. This policy also allows for the abuse of the freedom of speech because plenty of individuals possess the same last names.
Once we construct a policy that forces the writer's first name and last name to be printed along with his arguments, we render the abuse of the freedom of speech nearly impossible. However, since, albeit rarely, more than one individual on this campus may claim the same full name, an even better policy might be to print the writer's middle initial, or alternatively class.
This approach to defining the ideal editorial policy displays that dissemination of personal information beyond middle initials or classes unnecessarily sacrifices unbiasedness. The likelihood of the abuse of the freedom of speech would not decline by attaching, in addition, the columnist's picture or any other information like social security number or GPA to his writings. This is because the writer's identity is firmly established by his name, as well as class, and he would have virtually no incentive to risk being persecuted for the sake of writing vile polemics.
The bottom line is that respected newspapers do not attach columnists' face photos next to their writings. And by respected newspapers I do not mean U.S.A. Today, but, rather, such papers as The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. If The Dartmouth wants to engage in serious journalism, following the examples of respected papers might not be a bad idea.
I am sympathetic to the intent of The Dartmouth's "picture policy," which is to give its op-ed page aesthetic variety. But this effect can be achieved by other means; The Wall Street Journal, for example, prints sketches of the individuals discussed in the columns.
A picture of a columnist may be worth a thousand words, but when those words often conflict with the words of his columns, there is a problem, which Ms. Parkinson unfortunately fails to see.
