But perhaps I should. In my assumption that people will be smart enough to see through the ranting when it appears on Channel 13, perhaps I give too much credit to the average local viewer. I say this because you should be concerned, yet few of you appear to be.

These comments from the council bench are indicative of one thing, something that should scare you, and that is that MAGIC, through its allies on the council, fully expects that it will be able to control the press. And for the most part, they've been able to do just that.

Think about it.

Aaron Miller was fired from his position as editor of the Katahdin Times not long after a tirade from the council bench from Avern Danforth, who was then on the council, as well as a board member of MAGIC. Following that, the Times received some complaints from another member of the council and others affiliated with MAGIC, and then Aaron was gone.

Joe Nugent, a reporter for the Katahdin Times, was transferred to the school board beat, and then fired, after his employer received complaints from at least one council member allied with MAGIC. His crime? Prior to his employment with the Times, he had signed a petition to recall three members of the council, including the one who complained, all of whom were then on the board of MAGIC.

The Community Press? They are housed in the BRIC building, and they rarely write anything that MAGIC would object to. And of course, they are privy to a lot of MAGIC exclusives not offered to either the Times or the Morning Star. As a result, a large part of every issue of the Press is about the wonderful things that MAGIC might do for us if only we would quit complaining about the absence of good results, and give them enough money and power.

I'd like to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with this. The Community Press serves a purpose that is of interest to this community, and they have every right to devote the bulk of their newspaper to MAGIC's activities, its various committees, and promises that never come to fruition. They certainly do scoop the Times when it comes to MAGIC news, so I won't even suggest that it isn't working for them.

The Morning Star doesn't have the resources to cover a lot of the news, and until recently we haven't had the time, but I suppose we have devoted much of our local opinion section to MAGIC, and we've been subjected to a vicious attack over the opinions we publish.

Where do these people get the idea that they can control the press?

We've given it to them, of course, by allowing them to do so. The media permits it whenever it weighs the costs of printing a story that doesn't have the approval of MAGiC. And as readers, we let it happen when we don't demand two sides to a story.

The most recent attack has been over our policy of printing anonymous letters to the editor. Councilors Polstein, Fanjoy, and Nelson have criticized our policy of publishing letters from people who have opinions to offer but would rather remain anonymous.

If not so that they can attack them, why are they so interested in knowing the identity of anyone who disagrees with them? Why is an opinion any less valid because the author doesn't want his name attributed to it?

The publisher and editor of the Community Press have insinuated that our practice of publishing anonymous letters violates some media code of ethics that we were unaware of.

Is this true?

Not according to the Columbia Journalism Review. In an article published in the May/June 1991 edition of the Review, the author, Terence A. Dalton, who was then an assistant professor of journalism at Western Maryland College in Westminster, speaks of "a small but growing number of dailies and weeklies that have decided to open up their editorial pages to readers who have opinions to offer but don't want to see their names or addresses attached to them."

In the article, David Greer, editor of the News-Enterprise, a 17,000-circulation daily, is quoted as saying that while he initially had qualms about publishing anonymous letters, he has "come to believe that, for a certain type of comment and opinion, attribution is not necessary." Greer adds, "In some cases, journalists are a little too hung up on attribution, and (requiring it) frightens people away."

That's just what we've been saying, and this is what led to our decision to open our letters to the editor section up to anonymous writers.

Have things changed since 1991?

Not according to a study published by the Newspaper Research Journal in the fall of 2004. Intended to examine, update, and enhance the answers to the perennial question of who writes letters to the editor, the media study arrives at some interesting conclusions.

Pointing out that the practice of rejecting unsigned letters became widespread only in the latter part of the 20th century, the authors discuss the evolution of such policies among U.S. newspapers.

"The publication of letters without the names of the writers was prevalent throughout the first half of the 20th century, and it wasn't until the 1970s that the vast majority of U.S. newspapers started to adopt "must sign" policies for a variety of reasons, from making it easier to select letters for publication to encouraging more letters from people willing to sign their names. By the mid-1990s, according to a survey by Suraj Kapoor, more than 85 percent of newspapers would not publish a letter without the name of the author, and purely anonymous letters were automatically rejected nearly 94 percent of the time. Coinciding with the rise of "must sign" policies were increasingly negative opinions editors had toward those who submitted anonymous letters, as described in essays by editors in professional journals such as The Masthead, Quill, and Columbia Journalism Review, as well as opinions gathered in research interviews with editors. The adoption of "must sign" policies coupled with editors' biases against writers who want to remain anonymous may have affected the types of people who submit letters in the first place and almost certainly affects the nature of opinions that make it into print."

The study concludes by stating unequivocally that policies prohibiting anonymity are not a good thing. The study continues ...

"A finding that should raise some concerns, especially among newspaper editors, is the evidence that newspapers' "must sign" policies have a chilling effect on letters submissions. Roughly one in three people who do not write letters would submit their opinions to newspapers if their names would be withheld. Most susceptible to that chilling effect are women, people who live in large cities, people who are younger than retirement age and people with either unusually high or unusually low incomes. In all cases, it could be argued that people seen as being more vulnerable than others are more likely to opt out of the letters forums out of fear of being identified and perhaps being susceptible to intimidation. There is little surprise that women are more likely than men to want to have letters published without their names - women in the United States are known to be more susceptible than men to workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and domestic violence. Some possibilities: Urbanites may be more concerned about remaining anonymous because of higher crime rates in cities, while people younger than retirement age might be more concerned about their printed opinions affecting their job security. The findings regarding income are, admittedly, somewhat puzzling: perhaps financial status on either side of the middle can lead to different concerns about security and public exposure. Regardless, the findings certainly cast doubts upon the reasons editors sometimes give to justify their "must sign" policies - that somehow people who don't want to sign their names are crackpots or are unworthy of having their opinions published, or that opinions in such letters are of inherently lower value than opinions in signed letters. To make such claims in light of the above evidence seems unwise and unfair, and newspaper editors might do well to rethink their "must sign" policies."

The Magic City Morning Star was formed in a climate in which the print media appeared to be afraid to print opinions, or to even report on news that might put MAGIC and its majority on our town council in a bad light, and we believe that it is both unfair and unreasonable to expect greater courage from writers of letters to the editor than we have seen from the local media itself.

We were warned in advance, and have since seen first hand, that we live in an environment where the exercise of free speech can and does hurt, where businesses are ruined and employment lost when people dare to speak openly against, or sign a petition in opposition to, those who hold our economy in their hands.

The alternative to courage is to live in fear, and we understand that many of you do. When you tell us that you would lose your job, or your business, if you spoke out openly, we know that your fears are not unreasonable.

Without the Magic City Morning Star and its policy of permitting anonymity, your options are limited to joining them and selling your soul for personal financial opportunity, fighting them and risking the loss of your livelihood, as we have, or shutting up and letting them have their way with you.

We offer a fourth alternative, and we're proud of it.

We're not a newspaper like the Katahdin Times or the Community Press, and we don't want to be. We believe that the Katahdin area doesn't need three newspapers doing essentially the same thing, and we are pleased to offer an alternative.

Our policy is to publish anonymous letters on request but, at the same time, we respect the right of other newspapers to require attribution. Reasonable arguments can be made for either of these policies, however, and we reject the suggestion that professional ethics dictate either position.

We will not knowingly publish false information, but we are not responsible for the opinions of others. Anyone who wishes to refute anything published in the Magic City Morning Star is invited to respond, by name or in the safety of anonymity.

If you believe that your side of an argument is not properly represented by the Morning Star, we beg you to provide the other, either as a letter to the editor, a guest column, or as a regular feature to our publication. We mean this sincerely.

Ours is a policy of inclusion, involving those who might otherwise be left without a voice.