A response to Rowe's column of October 6
For those readers who don't receive Saturday's Telegram, the following is a letter to the editor which I wrote in response to an October 6 column by Bill Rowe. It was published on Saturday, October 13.
This is a response to Bill Rowe's column in your October 6 edition, in which he responded to questions I raised about anonymous callers on his and other VOCM call-in shows.
Rowe's comments were for the most part even-handed and I responded to them in my Meeker on Media blog, which is hosted at www.thetelegram.com (as is Rowe's column).
However, Rowe also went off topic to make a sly dig at "consultants" who don't reveal who their clients are, implying that I have a hidden agenda. I do not. My opinions are mine and mine alone.
My reputation is important to me and it is not for sale. If Rowe has reason to believe that I am selling out, he should say so. But be specific. Name an instance where some devious client' is pulling my strings. If he reads my blog, it will become quite apparent that the opinions expressed are my own.
When I criticize something in my blog, I do so responsibly and offer precise reasons why. I give an honestly held opinion of undisputed facts, which is the definition of fair comment. I do not indulge in sneering innuendo.
Is it any wonder people prefer to be anonymous, when such insinuations are made against those who do stand behind their opinion?