Cowardly poseurs don’t deserve ‘fearless views’ space in PDI
THE PROVERBIAL “horde of locusts” has descended upon Inquirer columnist Rigoberto Tiglao. His “sin”? Having exposed the dubious practice by some quarters of using fictitious names in writing letters to the editor.
I am appalled that these critics of Tiglao have the gall to say that he (Tiglao) has “destroyed the credibility” of the Letters section. The way I see it, legitimate letter-writers should instead thank him for revealing a questionable practice that can only seriously undermine the believability of the Inquirer’s letters to the editor in general. Instead, Tiglao’s critics blithely try to justify the use of false names, saying that this does not affect the validity of the views expressed. What? Perhaps they forget that there is a reason why letters to the editor are required to state personal information regarding the writer thereof and that is, among others, to prevent persons who hide their identities from partaking of the legitimacy of the paper to lend weight to their opinions. I must remind them that there is also a reason why the law prohibits the use of aliases, save for narrow exceptions.
Indeed, the editorial board of the Inquirer, which prides itself on printing “fearless views,” should be the first to ensure that no poseur who does not possess the courage of his convictions may have such views see the light of print on its pages. In this day and age of chartered free expression, a man who hides behind a pseudonym puts to serious doubt the validity of his views, or his reasons for stating his beliefs. Only those who have something menacing to hide will fear and resent the exposé of Tiglao.
Article continues after this advertisement—FERDINAND S. TOPACIO,
