Questions From Readers on Topics From Jane Austen to Kerry Kennedy

By MARGARET SULLIVAN

As I sometimes do in this blog, I am allowing readers to ask the questions today, and I am providing answers from Times staff members. In two of the three cases, I'll add my own point of view.

1. Scott Perl, of Albuquerque, wants to know how The Times decides whether to identify those who write letters to the editor. His letter, somewhat abridged, is below. The letters editor, Thomas Feyer, responds.

I notice that The Times often publishes the professional affiliation of the writer. This makes sense when the writer is commenting on a topic to which he or she has professional expertise or the writer's affiliation is significant to the topic. However, I do not understand why the writer's association or profession is relevant when it has nothing to do with the topic the letter is discussing.

Just as an example, in the Letters concerning the first debate, there are two that note th e writers are professors. If the topic had something to do with the law, and the professor taught that specific area of the law it might be relevant. But in these cases, whether they are professors, blue collar workers or small business owners, their opinion, just as their vote, is worth no more or less than anyone else's.

Mr. Feyer's response:

ID lines in letters are sometimes a judgment call; in borderline cases we prefer to give readers more information, not less.

In this case - the debate letters - one was from the well-known N.Y.U. law professor Stephen Gillers, but without an ID the reader wouldn't necessarily have known that it was from THE Stephen Gillers.

In general, of course, IDs are used only when relevant to the subject of the letter.

2. Commenting on a photo of a man, dressed in Regency costume, standing with his back to the camera at a urinal at a Jane Austen festival in Brooklyn, a reader, James Hyatt of Princeton, N.J., asks simply:

What possible reason could there be to run this picture?

The Culture editor, Jonathan Landman, responded to my question about the taste and appropriateness of using the photo, whether there was discussion about it, and to what extent the subject was on board with how the photo would be used.

Mr. Landman wrote:

“We did indeed flag it and discuss it. We thought it helped convey the particular character of this quirky gathering. The subject was aware and cooperative.”

My point of view: I loved the story by Jennifer Schuessler, which â€" as an Austen fan myself - I found witty and well-written. But I could have easily done without the urinal photo.

3. Dorothy Slater of Denver has a complaint about Wendy Ruderman's story on Kerry Kennedy. (Ms. Kennedy was arrested last summer on a charge of driving with ability impaired after an accident in Westchester County.)

Please explai n why it was necessary for readers to know that Kerry Kennedy wore “platform shoes, a suit, a hot-pink blouse and pearl earrings” in the story published in Tuesday's paper? Did the description of her attire in any way add to the news value of the article? Are we to be treated to a sartorial description of what her ex-husand, Governor Cuomo, wears? The answers are of course no. Given that there was a large picture of Ms. Kennedy, all those interested in her clothing saw for themselves what she was wearing and the fact that her blouse was “hot pink” certainly didn't matter to this reader. More importantly, The Times played right into the complaints that Ms. Kennedy articulated - it demeaned and trivialized her real accomplishments. Will women never be immune from this sort of nonsense?

That description, which appeared in an early edition, was removed from the later version that I saw this morning. I talked to Ms. Ruderman, who said that in general, she agre es with the complaint that what women are wearing is given too much emphasis. In this case, though, Ms. Kennedy's clothing added to the effect that the writer was getting across. “This was a scene-setting story, not one that had any particular news to it, and I was just trying to capture the sights and sounds,” Ms. Ruderman said. “It was all very orchestrated in a strange, Kennedy way, and what she was wearing added to that.”

My point of view: I admired the story this morning when I read it in the print edition, with its telling details: “Though not quite 1 p.m., fruity and sweet-smelling candles sat lighted around the house.” The description of the subject's apparel may have been too much, though, and the editing choice to take it out was a good one.