Blog contributor Maj. Dorian de Wind (Ret.) asked:

"What (and why) is generally the policy of news media when it comes to publishing the 'real' names of Letters to the Editor writers and of other opinion or editorial contributors." He rarely sees letters signed "anonymously" and wonders if some writers might be using fake names. He also understands, as I do, that some writers wouldn't want their names published when writing about "certain matters."

Well, Maj. De Wind, funny you should ask. That question has been tossed around at Stars and Stripes since about a decade ago. In a controversial move, the editors at the time prohibited letter writers to the Pacific edition from withholding their names. (European edition letter-writers already had been required to use their names.) The reasoning was that used by most newspapers: A writer should be willing to stand up for whatever he or she was commenting on, through self-identification, especially if the content of the letter was controversial or accusatory. The principle also holds for Stripes' policy concerning use of unnamed sources in articles: A person denigrating another person or organization must be named in the article, period.

Of course some writers will absolutely refuse to let their names be attached to letters if they are exposing some wrongdoing. In that case, the reasoning goes, the reader can use his or her information as a tip to the editors and reporters so they can investigate the claims. That's how whistleblower rules work anywhere in the government.

Anyway, when the rule was changed in the Pacific there was an outcry from readers who had grown accustomed to the use of "anonymous" on letters. I heard complaints when I came to Stripes in 2000, and they are still heard now and then. I support the rule, and senior editors say there is no thought of changing it. The fact is that in both European and Pacific editions there is no shortage of letter-writers willing to put their names on comments of all sorts, including highly controversial ones.

As to the question whether some might be using fake names, the editors do not run a letter until they have contacted the writer, with the purpose of verifying identification.

Now we get to the relatively new and potentially troubling issue of naming names. I refer, of course, to blogosphere, where millions worldwide can have their opinions, no matter how harsh, appear electronically without real names attached. It's a problem that preoccupies many Web sites, including this one. We all have similar policies: Police the comments and do away with scurrilous ones quickly.

Some experts are now campaigning for policies that require writers to give their names to a site, even if pseudonyms are allowed on a case-by-case bases. For much more on this subject, see "Limits on anonymity can decrease online vitriol," an op-ed article by Tom Grubisich of Online Journalism Review that appeared in Stripes on May 16.

Not all contributors to blogs are opposed to the use of their names. That includes the fellow whose comment inspired this posting: Maj. De Wind.