Filling in the blanks - Editor's Note - Editorial

Communications News,  April, 2003  by Ken Anderberg

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Editors always like to receive letters or e-mails from their readers-almost. While sometimes those messages essentially say we're nincompoops, and make us cringe if the reader happens to be on target about an egregious error in print, generally, letters reinforce to us that you are reading the publication-and paying attention to what is being published. Of course, we do receive messages from vendors who see their competitors in print and want equal treatment, and we often get those "get-rich-quick" offers from Nigeria that have been making the rounds for at least 10 years (and still hoodwink normally intelligent human beings at every turn).

Our policy with letters that take issues with articles is to let the reader have his or her say-in print-but to also share the letter with the contributor of the article so that the letter writer's questions or issues can be answered. This sort of dialogue is an important element of a trade publication such as Communications News, as it provides an additional forum for idea sharing that can help many readers with their decision-making.

Recently, we received an e-mail from a cabling installer relevant to our February cover story, "Cabled for the Future." The reader took issue with a number of decisions that were made by professional services firm CH2M HILL when it cabled its new Denver-area, four-building campus. This reader questioned the choice of various cabling solutions for the task, and suggested that more effective and less costly selections could have been made.

While we attempt to incorporate as much relevant information into each article as possible, space considerations often mean that not all implementation decisions are explained completely. Sometimes, this might be an oversight by the editors, but usually articles can only touch on the high points, by necessity, and cannot fully explain many of the details.

Therefore, this reader's questions needed a more complete explanation of CH2M HILL's implementation strategy. So, we asked the cabling provider, Ortronics, and Adam Marsh at CH2M HILL to respond to the letter writer's concerns.

The complete text of this written point-and-counterpoint discussion, however, was too long to include in this month's issue. So, we decided to post it on the Communications News Web site rather than reduce it substantially. To the point, the discussion between the reader and CH2M HILL is so instructive that reducing it by at least a third in order to put it in print would do a disservice to both parties and would provide scant useful information to our readers.

As a result, the entire text of this discussion has been posted on the Web for your review-at www.rsleads.com/304cn-266.

Finally, let me say that I admire both sides for airing out this matter. People often do not write letters to the editor for fear of being ridiculed in print. Vendors and subjects of articles often do not want anything negative about them to be written (who does?). In this case, all parties were willing to provide their viewpoints. The end result provides our readers with a better understanding of the numerous considerations that go into an implementation of this kind.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Nelson Publishing
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group