retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Earlier this week, I explained how and why some folks who write emails to MNB are identified, and why some are not. I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last few days, and I’ve come to the conclusion that while I think the policy is a good one, I made a mistake that is too late to rectify...but at least ought to be acknowledged.

As I said, while I know where emails come from, my policy is not to use the name if there is not a signature at the bottom, and to use the name if there is. Occasionally, someone will ask for anonymity even if they have signed their name, and I have no problem with that. Sometimes I will not use a name even if it has been signed, simply because I have a gut feeling that the person might get in trouble or even lose their job if their name were to appear - and that isn’t good for anyone. And rarely I will not use names even when people sign their emails, simply because I think they are using MNB to promote a personal agenda or business, and I try to be careful about that stuff.

However, early this week I posted an email from a former Daymon employee who clearly was disgruntled, and who challenged the legitimacy of his former employer’s business practices. In retrospect, I should not have posted that email without identifying the source - the allegations were simply too serious to allow for anonymity.

I try to weed out the personal attacks, on the premise that the only person around here who is allowed to get personal is me - because my name and face are clearly identified. I screwed up on this one. And I owe you all an apology for that.

I’ll try to do better in the future.
KC's View: