What's in a name?

Action Line has evolved as the years roll by, but my underlying philosophy remains the same as when I started this column in 1985. I aim to resolve the problems and issues of individual consumers, while educating and informing all Spectator readers. I strive to accomplish this task while being fair, ethical and mindful of the law.

We name names in this column, as a general rule. We print the consumer's name, since they are usually the complainant. And we print the name of the firm the consumer is squabbling with. But there are exceptions to this rule.

Occasionally, consumers ask me to write a report critical of a certain firm, while not naming them. This won't happen simply because the reader requests anonymity. If we are going to name the offending company, then surely we must name the complainant. That is fair, ethical and mindful of our legal responsibilities as a newspaper.

But if there are very good reasons for protecting someone's identity, we will do that. Those reasons can vary. If the consumer might be placed at risk, we may not publish his or her name. Factors which come into play might include someone's age, physical condition and whether they live alone. Are they vulnerable to retaliatory action from the firm or will they be hassled by others?

Occasionally it is the corporation that requests its name be kept out of the paper. Obviously, firms may fear damage to their reputation, loss of business and consumer backlash. Generally, however, the large well-established companies will not do this. They accept the fact we live in a free society and they do business knowing any disgruntled customer has the right to lodge a complaint and go public.

It is usually the smaller operators, the fly-by-night characters, who make this request. When they do so, I explain why this request will not be granted.

Basically, names will only be kept out of this column if I believe that is the correct thing to do.

You don't always need to expose simply for the sake of exposing. Sometimes there is a greater good to be served. Putting a particular firm out of business may not be the right thing to do. After all, that doesn't help its customers get refunds. Other times, the complainant may not be standing on solid ground. When you view or judge the damage their complaint may cause ... well, sometimes I can enlighten readers without causing needless grief.

It takes a delicate and experienced touch. "You gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em," as the old Kenny Rogers ballad proclaimed.

It's also wise to keep legal concerns in mind. While libel and defamation suits are filed against the newspaper, some consumers are their own worst enemies. They feel they have the right to say anything about anyone to anyone at any time. Their language is quite colourful, but it can be slanderous. A local firm recently filed a countersuit against a couple who took the firm to Small Claims Court, claiming it failed to deliver the goods they had ordered. But the firm believes they stepped overboard in their remarks and accusations.

So, if you are too vitriolic, I may have to protect you from hurting yourself by not naming you or the firm you are shredding.

But the rest of the time, you can expect to read the names of all parties here in this space. It's much like going to court. Your name will be on the docket. There are few bans on publication. The same holds true here.

I'm on vacation and return Sept. 4.

If you have a consumer problem, call 905-526-4665 or e-mail amacrury@thespec.com. Not all calls and letters can be answered.