of stories and, in a small place with a multitude of social and political pressures, there are good reasons for not using bylines.

However, our reporters have been receiving recognition when they write for our sleek, new and successful RG Magazine, and thought they would like to have similar bylines in the daily.

We do not believe that bylines will improve the quality of reporting because Royal Gazette reporters are serious and sensitive journalists.

However, bylines create the danger of exposing reporters personally to small country pressures which can be disruptive to free and open reporting. There are people who want to know who is writing the stories so that they can decide which messenger to shoot. It may be typical of small islands or it may just be Bermuda, but Bermuda is obsessed with politics and politics is no longer a gentleman's game and reporters may be better off if they are not subjected to self-serving political attacks. If the reporter is unidentified the paper takes any pressure arising from a sensitive or controversial story but bylined reporters have to shoulder the pressures and are subjected to often unwarranted abuse.

There are people who think that byline will give the paper a more personal "face''. That is true for those people who know reporters but for the majority of Bermudians for whom reporters are naturally anonymous it is an unlikely result. In fact, it may well give reporters "a face'' when they might be more comfortable and more effective journalists, free to go about their job unhindered, if they were anonymous.

The Royal Gazette also has reader problems with letters signed with pen names.

There are those who feel letter writers should have "the courage of their convictions'' and sign their letters. But small town pressures come into play once again and there are those who are literally scared to sign. Then too there are those who simply cannot sign, like the politicians who complain about their own political parties, trades unionists who rail at their union or businessmen who worry that their views might impact on their business.

The best argument for allowing letters with pen names has been the recent gay dispute. Without anonymity, the gay community would have been rendered voiceless in the face of bigots.

One problem is that some people are more outspoken in unsigned letters than they might be if they signed their name and that leads to exaggerated views.

Another problem is a small group of outspoken but extreme people who regularly sign their names. We fear that the column might be left entirely to them and to their views if we insisted on signed letters. The newspaper does, of course, know the identity and address of letter writers.

For now we intend to continue the policy of allowing pen names but it is a policy which is actively under review. Whether or not the policy continues will depend on the quality of the letters we receive. Perhaps readers will write and tell us what they think.