I have no rejection issues around here. At the same time that I started here, I also started at TheConservativeVoice.

(I don't think of myself as left or right, because when I was the 18-year-old independent candidate, I was 'other,' or 'none of the above.' My practical idealism has some appeal and some overlap with many parts of the political spectrum.)

For awhile, I found it to be very cool that the same material was being published by sites that were left AND right. Later, I started to publish at NolanChart (a libertarian site) as well.

My recent open letter to Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty chewed them out on a variety of issues, and--

OpEdNews published it
NolanChart published it; and,
TheConservativeVoice rejected it.

Why? I made a passing, fleeting reference to the 9/11 truth movement. It was within a bullet point-style list. This is actually the second time that TheConservativeVoice has rejected something where I included the 9/11 truth movement.

It suggests to me that TCV, even while it is internet-based "new media," is nonetheless running with "old media" assumptions and rules of thumb. Said assumptions and rules of thumb tend to be flawed and faulty.

But in either case, I have not written to push back or flame them. If someone's head is buried in the sand about 9/11 -- heck, I haven't even offered a "theory," just questions (but the mere mention gets it blown off as a "conspiracy theory") -- there's no point to commencing an argument designed to change their mind. The research is out there for the curious; they would have studied it as a media outlet; and, the ignorance is willful. The denial is their considered response. So, I don't engage them in debate or repartee.

by John Kusumi (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 107 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:28:27 PM

  (0+)

Oh, by the way -- when I published my article, "Breaking My Silence On 9/11 Truth," the earlier piece rejected by TCV, 350 places around the web picked it up and republished it. That thing had legs, and it must have been my most popular article ever!

by John Kusumi (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 107 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:34:03 PM

  (0+)

The editorial staff and selection of material seems just fine to me.  I have no problems here at all.  This was one of my favorite sites even before I began writing here too.

by Michael Chavers (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 198 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:34:42 PM

  (0+)

is all part of being a journalist.  If OpEdNews rejects an article I have written it means that as a journalist I have not followed rule # 1, two independant sources independantly verified.

The truth is needed, but wacky x-file plots are not.  That show is only in re-runs. 

That is not to say that the truth can not be like a x-file, but have the facts to back your story up.

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:40:05 PM

  (0+)

As an election reform activist, I marvel at the quickness of some " activists" to remove a person or concept from the conversation. Like the " high voltage torture tests ' it seems that humans can not handle authority over each other. They will follow direction ad send the voltage to their fellow citizen "enemy'.  I applaud Mr. kall's point of view, and encourage all of us to do better. In taking a position of leadership that involves media and the ability to be heard, a certain duty arises. that duty should be honored with a fair hand that allows all points of view.  -  Brent Turner 

by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:48:47 PM

  (0+)

Freedom of speech only applies when the censor is a governmental entity.  Nobody infringed on anyone's right to free speech.  Sort of like complaining about illegal search and seizure when your mom finds your stash under the mattress.

by 1dogbarking (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:56:34 PM

  (0+)

As another contributor who has had articles either rejected or content changed for clarity purposes, I fully understand the need for editorial discretion.  It is part of writing.  A good editor can make a writer look like a Pulitzer winner, a bad one can turn the best of writers into a functional illiterate.  The important thing here is that OpEdNews.com gives us the opportunity to be read.  The integrity of the site is the responsibility of those who decide what is accepted.  As previously noted, free speech is the opportunity to speak, whether the speaker is heard or not is the choice of the listener.

by Kenneth Barr (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 107 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:57:44 PM

  (0+)

your comebacker to the rejected writer missed the point, rob.  1st amendment rights exist only where there is STATE ACTION involved.  your publication is not an organ of the federal government, nor (i assume) does it receive federal funds.  no state action = no possible infringement.  it's that simple. 

by legalpad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:04:45 PM

  (0+)

no state funds, though, if my legislators wanted to earmark a few million dollars to support an independent free press, the money wouldn't be rejected.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:52:58 PM

  (0+)

Wrong!  That money would HAVE to be rejected, Rob.  I know you were just trying to make a lighthearted comment, but you have to watch what you joke about.

The First Amendment, as has been pointed out correctly, prevents governmnet from censoring speech and it protects your right as an editor to have standards for what you publish.

Here is one suggestion, though.  Before an article is rejected, let two editors read it, maybe discuss it back and forth, maybe also with you part of the decision.  More than two plus you is chaos.

I'm glad the writer returned to reason and the exchange was well worth sharing.  Thanks for your caring stewardship, Rob.  Just wish I could send you a hundred bucks.  Maybe next month...

by Carl Weis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:32:52 PM

  (0+)

If you are a government funded speech outlet can you still reject articles?

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 1:07:23 PM

  (0+)

I did not see the rejected article so I can't comment on the content. 

As for the writer's First Amendment rights, I believe the Amendment says in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...".   Congress did not abridge his freedom to say anything he wanted, but neither did the Constitution guarantee unfettered media access to say whatever he wanted.

Good for the editor.

by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:06:22 PM

  (0+)

I remember when Rob was begging for articles, now, as there is a flood of such, more selectivity is allowed as to what is acceptable.

As others have noted, to be an author is to be rejected, possibly more than accepted. A pity the author of the rejected piece was too personally involved with his work to understand the fate of authors everywhere.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:19:27 PM

  (0+)

so much for me respecting your anonymity.

It may well have been that if another editor had checked out your article, it would have passed. But part of my role is to honor, respect and trust our editors-- with feedback and corrections as needed.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:55:54 PM

  (0+)

Don't have any valid opinion one way or the other on publish or not to publish. Can't say that I align with your thoughts in this one article and I would probably have verbalized it differently. But it did bring a smile to my face and a chuckle to my throat. The illustrations were humorous.

by CHIG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:21:03 PM

  (0+)

After reading the discussed rejected item at the provided link, if I were one of Rob's editor's I too would have rejected it for lack of substance for the purpose of informing and encouraging thinking and discussion by OpEdNews.com readers. Your article of 2/5/08, "Super-Delegates" - more like "Super-UnDemocratic" , while mostly a copy of Tom Curry's article at MSNBC.com was far more informative and better written on the same general subject.

I recently had a QuickLink rejected by an editor with the statement, "Thank you but this article link doesn't fit our website." Not understanding how this applied I did some searching on the OpEdNews.com website and then responded,

I am confused by the response, "Thank you but this article link doesn't fit our website."

Since reading your rejection I have looked for specific criteria on what is acceptable and do not find anything definite. The submission page states:
"If you find great news article, or op-ed column or blog entry (with a permalink) we'd really appreciate it if you add a link on OpEdNews to that article...."

Possibly I just don't know where to look. Would you please direct me to where I can see what is acceptable for OpEdNews.com for article links.

Thank you,
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (26 articles, 27 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 163 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:50:56 PM

  (0+)

I've tried to make it clear to editors that they should explain rejections. We use a collection of partial form letters combined with a PS that is personalized for the article. There are a few categories that are clear fromthe form letter-- personal promotion and out of date, but the rest, I do like the editors to explain WHY they've rejected the submission.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 8:52:36 PM

  (0+)

....and professor of journalism and mass communications, I know that freedom of speech ala the First Amendment gives (yes, "gift" is inherent in the word freedom but constrained by the civilized laws of the US Constitution)... gives the right to a writer/speaker to voice his/her opinion, and it gives the right to the editor/audience to accept or reject the writing/speech based solely on its "fit" with the forum and its audience.

Our democracy mandates a reciprocal freedom of speech. Thus, rules of engagement that protect and mark works as "doing no harm" abound. And the first rule a writer must learn is that rejection is mostly defined by the manner in which the material is presented, its appropriateness to the publication or source. Always ask, and be able to answer, the guestion, "What is my intent?" Motivation chooses venue; venue chooses based on motivation; and motivation is transparant based on the language a writer uses.

This firm reciprocity of "freedom of speech" between speaker and receiver must be embraced by the writers/speakers in a democracy if they ever want their voices to be heard. Afterall, freedom doesn't mean "a free-for-all" without boundaries to guide us to think and express in a respectful manner.

Thank heavens for editors who have the courage and the insight to choose wisely and always with their readers in mind. Since OpEdNews.com is a reader/writer driven forum, there are no advertisers to please, so motivation for rejection or acceptance sits soundly on the shoulders of the readers and editors. Otherwise, we would not have a "comments" section, now, would we?

Right on, Rob.

Nan

by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:34:34 PM

  (0+)

we DO have some advertisers, just not many. And our advertisers, to date, are generally very supportive of our content, not their support would make a difference.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:57:57 PM

  (0+)

I am neither a writer an editor nor constitutional lawyer. I have little to no visibility into the mechanics of journalism, and my only experiences for explanations of them are garnered from predominantly second or third hand sources. I have no idea of norms or best practices. What I do know is that as a lifelong progressive (the first campaign I remember working on was for Hubert H Humphrey’s presidential run while in grade school) is that transparency is a value I hold as important.

Your willingness to hold your process up to public scrutiny is appreciated and I feel a worthy step in the cycle of transparency. So long as the light of day is shined in the darkest recesses it becomes much simpler for people to operate from their highest self. It empowers each of us.

Thank you.

by CHIG (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:01:03 PM

  (0+)

Hello folks

Whenever I resubmit an article to Opednews because I have not heard back for a reasonable length of time, it is not to insist that it be printed. It is only to make sure that they got it and were able to review it. I always state "Needless to say, you are not obligated to print anything submitted by anybody, and that includes me".

I think if we all take responsiblity for our own side of the street, then corrective guidance comes as a welcome enrichment to our lives, the quality of our work and therefore the outreach thereof.

If Opednews had the same function as CNN, ABC, MSN etc and deleted Candidates from the debates, that would be a different matter. Because in that situation, they are governing the free choice of American citizens to choose their own Candidate. For the mainstream news to censor content of any kind would be to control the public itself as well as to control American policy. In that situation, I support a "free speech" violation claim.

However, for Opednews to pick and choose an article in order to maintain its own credibility and good image, that is certainly Opednews's right and even its responsiblity. It has been pointed out to me by a major activist that the work of activists is discredited based on rudeness: Good work, Opednews! And thank you for all that you do. I whole-heartedly support you in holding a standard, which is only to the best good of activists nation-wide as individuals and to the work of activism, as a whole, in and of itself.

I suggest that anybody blowing the "free speech violation" whistle may possibly be in need of corrective guidance which, in a spirit of defensiveness, they are rejecting. Best to turn that attitude around to one of gratitude and to become enriched in one's own writing style based on the valuable feedback of the very good editors here. Please, for heaven's sake, let's not taint the reputation of activists and activism by submitting rude content and then just as rudely/aggressively blowing the "free speech" claim which is only one more form of harrassment. Let's remember the spirit of the law, not merely the wording thereof.

Thank you all. And thank you Opednews for all that you do. What a service to the world, especially right now! Bravo.

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:03:33 PM

  (0+)

When I became active in yahoogroups and then blogs, I had two negative reactions as well as some positive ones.  Most positive was spontaneity.  Early chat groups had defined rules of civility, and as time went on I noticed language became more salty and, at times, libelous if in print.  I guess  you would say that my complaints were coarse and abusive language.  

This does not apply to all the venues I visited.  Some did not give me information I sought.  So I ended up in this place where articles have a purpose and are varied enough to be worth looking for.  Added enjoyment comes from being able to "talk back" to the writer.  Here again, we do not get those little quips of disgust which legacy newspapers allow on their online "blog" sessions.  

The "News" of OpEdNews comes first for me.  Doesn't have to be rock hard, but relevant.  The OpEd can perhaps be a little looser than what would appear occasionally in, say, the New York Times.  Still, in  editorializing, there needs to be some discretion.  I guess the best way to look at it is that fans, staff, family and detractors of a candidate will see it.  Most readers will judge the writer, and that not favorably.  For those who read the article and take umbrage, they are likely to judge not just the writer but everyone who participates in this publication.  

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1849 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:03:50 PM

  (0+)

As a couple of readers have crrectly noted, there is NO right to publish in the 1st A. There *is* a prohibition against the government infringing upon free speech (as what has happened a lot this past seven years by the B-C admin.), or imposing orior restraint (w. few and rare exceptions). The 1st A. also does NOT give the right for slander/libel, nor for obscenity. There *IS* every right of an editor to reject an article for any reason, but especially if it's libelous, not properly sourced, uses ad hominem attyacks, is poorly written, has no adequate development--or if she/he just doesn't want to run it. As an OpEd editor, I have noticed a lot of excellent articles. I have also noted that there are many writers who seem to have verbal diarrhea or what we sometimes call Filterless Belch Journalism--they believe they can just turn on the computer and type whatever they think and it should be published. Journalism is far more than just throwing words on paper. There must first be though--and there must be a standard of literary excellence. Even the mediocre community dailies have a minimum standard--although it doesn't seem that way at times.  Rob backs his editors--and the editors have good judgment. Rob's reply was diplomatic. That's why he is a good editor. My response might have been more pointed to the writer -- "You're wrong. Learn basic English, develop your thoughts, and then resubmit." (Heck, even Rob's responses in the 2nd response were logical. And deliberate.) --walter brasch (professor of journalism AND a long-time journalist/editor.)

by Brasch (87 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:36:18 PM

  (0+)

as one journalist who has vomited a article, based upon the crap that is shoved down out throats as truth, I agree.  While I would like to people to hear my rant, it is MY rant and not NEWS.

But I do agree that if an Acrticle is backed up with verified sources and written well or within the scope of the editor to correct, then it should be published here.

Not all the truth is pretty, but as long as backed up, needed.

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 7:02:16 AM

  (0+)

To me, Op-Ed News is no different than a magazine except it's on the Internet rather than being printed on paper. If anyone takes issue with it in regard freedom of speech, then send those articles to Time Magazine, Playboy, Rolling Stone or whatever - and see if they publish the story.

All media has to have editors to screen material - and there have been times when I wish they would have caught a mistake I made that I had to correct later and then admit I had made a mistake, but sh*t happens, so I/we strive to submit material that is as error free as possible and that fits in with the Progressive theme of Op-Ed News. No one here actually knows who I am, however, approximately 18 years ago I wrote an autobiography of my earlier life that HBO was considering making into a movie - but I was told I had to finish the second part before it could go any further, which because of security issues, I couldn't do. 

I tried to get a publisher many different times for book one - but it has been rejected, as most publishers do not accept unsolicited material. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with freedom of speech, but what editors feel is the best subject matter for their individual publications - and without the second book, it was unacceptable. Period. I've moved on, and while I believe it was an important piece, especially for it's social value and insight into a certain subject matter that I won't elaborate on; There are thousands of professional writers out there whom are able to write circles around me and I'm grateful that here at Op-Ed News, unknown's such as I are able to be heard in the company of those who are truly gifted writers - and yes, I have also had articles rejected.

There's always another day and another story to write, and knowing that, a rejection is nothing more than a critique which I try to pay close attention to so it won't happen again. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:37:22 PM

  (0+)

If you knew how to write a decent satire.

The thing you wanted published belongs in the halls of Democratic Underground and not the corridors of OpEdNews.

I wish they had upheld your freedom of speech or your freedom to be heard. Had they posted it, I would have immediately commented on it because it is hard to understand. 

You have a huge point with the superdelegates but your presentation of the issue makes me think superdelegates aren't all that bad really. And is that true? No. Superdelegates are a threat to democracy.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:45:35 PM

  (0+)

What's your point?

I didn't know the progressive movement had its own Rush Limbaugh. Or, I didn't know we had our own Michael Savage-like personality to put up with. 

Our movement's in enough trouble. Grow some tact.  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 6:30:01 PM

  (0+)

Grow up Ron. We've all had writing rejected. If it was published elsewhere, then what's the problem?

Most good writers wouldn't whine, they would re-write it, make it better, and re-submit it.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM

  (0+)

People respect Hillary Clinton - I don't. Get over it. I'll call her "fat legs" if I want to. And you'll hate me and chastize me more for calling her "fat legs" than for her killing over a million human beings with her unconstitutional voting practices.

i think had you written (and i imagine you have somewhere) about clinton's record that you mention in your explanation that would have been well-received and people most likely would have engaged in a dialogue about it. "fat legs" is kinda empty don't you think and really doesn't advance anything not even what bothers you the most about her.

i'm a big fan of satire, but simple name calling is easy and the crude sexist language you used to describe chelsea clinton i don't think rises to the level of satire or humor. if your point was to focus on clinton's pattern of usurping the will of the people you missed the mark and that's a shame. seems to me articles published here on opednews ought to appear as if there was some genuine thought and effort put into it. my objection is certainly not because i "respect" hillary clinton - hell, i've made fun of her myself in an article right here on opednews.

for the record, ron, i absolutely defend your right to say those vile things, however, i am glad that opednews has set some standards for what is published. for an editor to publish a piece is to say to their readers - "hey, check this out it's worthy of a few minutes of your time."

i think that's all the issue was about to begin with.

and if, as you say in a comment below, that you knew the answer to your question why are you wasting rob's time?

and for my dear friend, rob, regarding:

It may well have been that if another editor had checked out your article, it would have passed

please, say it ain't so!

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [7 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:46:08 PM

  (0+)

you say:

A current Rolling Stone article refers to Harry Reid as  "pussies."

yup, it sure did say that. it was written by matt taibbi and was called "chicken doves." i actually forwarded the article to a few friends. i personally despise the word, but you know what matt had some worthwhile reporting in there. missed the boat according to some, but it was good writing. had all he done was called reid that or pelosi the "c" word, it would have been useless and rolling stone would have dumped it.

come to think of it. i didn't just read it on rollingstone online. there was a quick link to it right here on opednews which, if i'm not mistaken, needs approval.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [7 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 7:54:15 AM

  (0+)

my "exactly" was about my point being made -  not that i think opednews would have rejected taibbi's piece. yes, he used the language that might offend some, but look at the bulk of the article. it definitely stood on its own. i don't know about your other writing, but can you seriously compare what you wrote in this instance with matt taibbi's writing? put the bravado aside for just a sec. and think about it. there is a difference here.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [7 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 8:08:50 AM

  (0+)

but I kept you, even your gender, anonymous. Your issue is not unique. Other writers have accused OpEdNews and me of disrespecting first amendment rights.  I thought this was a good illustration of how the conversation goes.

Now, you've added an interesting new twist to the situation. You've insulted the editors of OpEdNews in this comment thread. One has already said that your articles, will from now on, be skipped by that editor. Piss off  editors and that's what you get, and who can blame them.  Call it karma.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM

  (0+)

Fery tricky problem well, if time consumingly, handled.  From a writers perspective being direct and accurate with out offending cause stress; stress that results from not wringing a neck that really needs to be wrung.  When there is something that needs to be said it is difficult to say something else that is socially acceptable.  In the case of your writer and your publication, we are the choir and thus warrant the utmost of respect on the other hand, short of a wood pile, venting frustration is almost a requirement when trying to get through to a narcoleptic public that is being lead off to their enslavement by a corporate/government monster.   Thanks Rob

by John Hill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 4:54:42 PM

  (0+)

Well written post, Rob. I agree with your right to edit and reject what appears in what is essentially 'your' outlet. But I think this incident (and I'm sure countless thousands of others like it) says less about 'censorship', 'free speech' or even editorial responsibility than it does about the tenor of public and private discourse in America today. It used to be that two people, even those having diametrically oppsed viewpoints on a subject could disagree, even vehemently, without making it personal and dragging it out of the intellectual arena and into the gutter of personal conflict.

When I talk to, write to or about or even just vent about someone with whom I disagree, i try to not be vicious, mean or cruel. There is a time and place for insult and perjoratives in conversation and the media, but it should be a last resort, and should remain within the realm of good taste and a spirit of well-intentioned debate. Unfortunately, too many people when dealing with disagreement, rejection and even a perceived slight START OFF with invective and insult, and proceed downward from that point! This is true in everything from Presidential Debates to little league umpiring disputes!

When dealing with rejection, people should always try to put themselves in the other person's shoes- whether they are the rejector or the rejectee. If I submit an article that is rejected, I certainly don't want to burn bridges by taking an ostensibly professional disagreement into the personal arena. I mean, why ruin my chances for acceptance at a later date? Conversely, as an editor, I would not want to insult a writer who earnestly tried to present their point of view in a personally denigrating manner (which it appears you and your staff DID NOT do in this case!). That would be cutting myself off from what could be a future source of a positive and constructive writing submission in the future.

 I realize the level of frustration in this country is now at near all-time-high levels, and many people's fuses are dangerously short. But in every situation, we must all be willing to try to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. The perspective we gain might just give us a better insight into ourself and our own actions!

xtrabiggg

++++++++++++++++++++

by Thaddeus Kaczor Jr (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 46 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 5:54:22 PM

  (0+)

  I am very disappointed by your conclusion to the tale of your dialogue, as it were, with that moron. 

"A nice, satisfying wrap to an email exchange that could have gone in a very different direction," you say.  

  Is it nice, is it satisfying to ratify the mode of an ignoramus?

  When you have to explain to someone that freedom of speech does not include one person's legal obligation to publish another person's speech, you ought to think that you perhaps should be having this conversation with a way lower-level mind than yours.
  You were so right there, and you tried to explain it to him, and ended up with a (sort of "That's what makes horse races--you have your opinion, I have mine.") from him/her. And then you encourage an editor who works for YOU to take this person SERIOUSLY in the future??

  What business are you in, having lengthy worthless discussions with someone that ill-informed, and then forcing us all to read all about  it with a tantalizing headline? Pardon me for shouting, but HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO PRINT ANY OLD THING HE HANDS YOU???!! I see the Know-Nothing vote right now.

  Why on earth are you wasting your time, your editor's time, and even that court fool's time (not to mention OUR time) on re-running Third Grade, I mean as in "for nine-year olds," civics classes?

by Dan'l (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 6:01:25 PM

  (0+)

Rob - it's YOUR Blog so you can decide to publish or reject anything as the mood strikes you.

You don't even need a reason. You could just say: "Because I felt like it."

If the writer doesn't like it, the solution is utterly simple:

"Dude... START YOUR OWN effin BLOG!"

I would have told him that right at the start of the exchange. And then followed up with:

"Quit crying and get off your arse. You want to publish something that's been rejected?
Start your own blog.

End of story. Stop wasting my time."

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 7:32:34 PM

  (0+)

I read the original. It's no wonder that the article was rejected. The author lost his credibility early on with the "Fat Legs" comment.

by Louise Nelson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 7:51:37 PM

  (0+)

My experience has been that overt expressions of prejudice against religious or racial groups is a sure way to get rejected.  The neocons have provided ample ammunition for anti-semites.  Kissinger has done his part too.  Both dovetail nicely with the habitual portrayal of all Jews as subversive, conspiratorial, etc.

The truth is maybe even more depressing.  Jews are crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards like everyone else.  That is why they put up with such Republican creeps. 

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 8:11:28 PM

  (0+)

You have repeatedly made antisemitic remarks, hiding behind generalizations, like this one-- "Jews are crooks-- like everyone else. ."

You get one warning. Stop it or be gone from this site.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 9:06:00 PM

  (0+)

Without reading the article I can't comment on its quality. However I agree that the editorial board has the right to pass judgment as per their editoral policy. This is not a violation of First Amendment speech rights. This is not a case of Congress violating free speech. This is an editorial board rejecting an article according to their determined standards.

by Judith Conoyer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:53 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

I have no problem with your editorial policies.  It is your private site, and as I've said elsewhere, the First Amendment obviously does not apply.  And, it is fine to have a preferred type of political writing, a theme, if you will.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that you wish to entertain far greater diversity of opinion than MSM.  Heck, that is the attraction for many writers, isn't it?

The only article I had rejected was too long and poorly written because I rushed it.  After re-writing it, it was much better. 

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:44:08 AM

  (0+)

More anger will not help.  Only when we all, what ever our motivation, began to take A LONG LOOK at ourselves will things heal.  I feel that this man accusing you of not allowing free speach says it all.  Can't think of anywhere more that encourages free speech than Op Ed.  Thanks also for sharing the experience with us AND the experience of your life as a lightworker in "the old country", God it needs lightworkers.  I am a true believer that as the Dali Lama and Kurt V. said "KINDNESS IS THE ONLY THING THAT WORKS".  Anger only eats up the angry. What can I say, Jan Baumgartner is my fav OpEd writer, that too bout says it all. Thanks Rob ,your a star   the word hero is WAY overused. :-)

by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 4:44:27 AM

  (0+)

is an acknowledged necessity. Lenin said that. I studied that in school.There is no such thing as ' freedom of speech', sorry. There is a freedom of thought.  There is freedom in   pursuit of  the truth. But freedom of speech does not exist.

We all here are trying to avoid an issue: what the Hell are we doing here? If we here are for the ' forum'- we  then behave like High School kids  on the debates. I am not here for the forum. I am here to  teach and to learn. I learned a lot.  I hope I taught a lot too.  When I feel that nobody is learning I will  stop teaching. That simple.   People  here, all adults  should  appreciate  the opportunity. It is the country of opportunities. is it not?

Having said all that I urge everyone to stop writing too many articles. Some people have hundreds... ( not that  I judge).   Instead I urge to comment more and .. please, read   the materials you comment upon and also others. Learn to contribute something new. There is so much repetition on the site that I could concoct another Ravel's Bolero if I wanted to.

Acknowledge the necessity... you know, to  come out of the sandbox, folks.

Love you all

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [130 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 8:54:26 AM

  (0+)

I have been a reader here LONG before I ever began submitting content. Truth be told I didn't know I COULD submit content, lol or I probably would have done so a long time ago.

When I first began submitting I was being published left and right, including being headlined several times (I still have no idea what determines which stories are headlined and which are not). Anyhow, because I was being so successful at getting published here I thought to myself,

"Wow, piece of cake. They must not really read these things and this is like a message board with the submit function on Q, all I have to do is wait for someone to see I submitted and they will take it out of Q and post it on up".

That is not the case.

I have had things rejected. I have had things published that never got headlined. I have received a critique (I was actually excited over that because reasons for rejection give you a foundation to improve vs just being rejected and not knowing why - besides you can take the advice, re-work the story and resubmit).

I do see things from time to time that I wonder why they were headlined or even published, I also feel there is a lot of duplicate publishing going on (same story via quicklinks and articles, but under different titles), but although I wonder, I know that I am not an editor here nor am I the owner. The decision to publish is on their shoulders and I have come to realize there is a real criteria to be met. I don't have to agree or disagree with it.

The only thing I need to agree on is whether I want to be here and whether I want to submit (and yes take the chance of being rejected).

OpEd has the opportunity to be a brighter light in the darkness of new media, but in being that brighter light they do not have to lessen their standards (whatever those may be) to placate writers. Let's face it, more hard opinion gets published here then any other site with this kind of traffic. I for one appreciate that. And honestly, do insults and name calling make a piece stronger or does it lessen the blow of the original idea with which the article grew from?

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

In response to your “Free Speech” position, I find my personal view to be more than a bit conflicted.

Fundamentally, I think that censorship of articles should be limited to those articles which violate the standards, to which all of us are expected to adhere, and to which few (if any) have objected. Ad hominem attacks on writers, members, or private citizens have no place on OEN. When articles display substantial errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling or formatting, they certainly should be returned for editing.

That leaves a substantial number of articles in which emotion appears to overwhelm careful reason. Ascribing blame for complex problems to individuals, conclusions unsupported or contradicted by available evidence, or just plain faulty logic, seem to me to be less the domain of the editor, but rather, writings to be identified and remedied by the weight of reader comments. In the end, the poorly written article does no harm to the reader, who may choose to leave the scene, or comment upon it.

There does remain, I think, a countering argument. Ultimately, everything we write finds its way to becoming a part of one’s “permanent record,” there for the entire world to see, for years after it was written. Family, friends, school admissions personnel, and employers, all now use the Net to gain an often lasting impression of each of us. To the degree that what we write opens a window to our inner selves, it can be argued that rejection of a foolish piece of work is a generous act of protecting the individual from himself.

Yet, presumably all writers contributing to OEN are adults, and as such, should be expected to accept the consequences of their actions, which would seem to negate this “daddy” argument.

In the end, the only real justification I can see for rejection of any article is your right as publisher, to define the image of your publication, since we are after all, guests in your “home,” where you, as do we, define the behavior expected of us while enjoying the fruits of your invitation to be here.

by Sherwin Steffin (16 articles, 26 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 119 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM

  (0+)

i appreciate your insights on this, but would like to add something here. for example, you say:

 In the end, the poorly written article does no harm to the reader

i actually have to disagree on some level here. i mentioned in an earlier comment that:

for an editor to publish a piece is to say to their readers - "hey, check this out it's worthy of a few minutes of your time."

if opednews ascribed to the standards you propose we could potentially end up with an unlimited # of articles on the front page (and in the newsletter that rob sends to most of our in-boxes). i don't always like or agree with everything published here, but i have so far some trust that what i'm getting ready to read has some substance whether newsworthy or simply entertaining. that is one of the responsibilities of an editor.

so, how does it potentially "harm" the reader. well, it doesn't in the traditional sense of the word, but the actual time that i have to spend reading articles, especially "op-eds" is very limited. when i get that newsletter from rob in my inbox i want to know that whichever article i choose to click has the potential to be worth my time.

like most decent publications, opednews has a certain tone to it. that tone, while often shaped by the readers/writers, is ultimately the chief editor's prerogative to set. you get a sense after a while what the tone is. it's then up to the reader/writer to decide if they want to participate in that. 

for a publication to establish itself like opednews has, there needs to be some structure. anyone can setup a message board style of publication where anything goes - i suggest some might want to go for that. i don't think that's what rob is trying to accomplish here, though, and for that i am grateful.

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [7 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM

  (0+)

This is the second time I joined OpEd.  I left OpEd a few years ago when I witnessed what I consider censorship to those who supported Ralph Nader.  The pen is mightier than the sword, and OpEd cut Naderites out and down, and it was painful to watch.  Bush was very compassionate by comparison.

What brought me back to OpEd was Google news search for Ron Paul.  Rob invited rEVOLutionaries to OpEd and I donated $20 and gave myself a 200 post limit to see if I wanted to resume with OpEd.  If OpEd was to be another Common Dreams, or Daily Kos, I don't need it.  I have progressed from progressive and search for others who have as well.

Ron Corvus is one who I enjoy reading.  Maybe he should write for antiwar.com and counterpunch and move up, because frankly, I think he's getting screwed if he's not being published..I like Anthony Wade.  They both think outside the progressive trap (like Nader..you go only so far and then they eat you alive).

For those who KNOW they can write and are getting rejection slips at OpEd, I would say it's time to respect yourself and submit to Ron Paul, Third party bloggs...where you will find, more appreciation than here, at OpEd, the most open Progressive site there is.

You see?  OpEd is really cool for what it is...what is, is the problem.  It's progressive..it's the nature of it's beast.  Control to death do us part.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM

  (0+)

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003708936&imw=Y

Mike Shields

FEBRUARY 11, 2008 -

Since CNN embraced the citizen journalist movement back in August 2006 with the launch of its iReport initiative, the news organization has received nearly 100,000 news-related photos and videos from viewers, including nearly 10,000 this past January alone. Yet less than 10 percent of those submissions have appeared on CNN.com or the cable channel.

That’s all about to change. Time Warner’s CNN this week will enter YouTube territory with the launch of iReport.com, a new Web site built entirely on user-produced news. And unlike CNN’s own properties—where only iReport submissions that have been handpicked by editors and checked for accuracy ever make it online or on air—the new site will be wide open, allowing users to post whatever content they choose, CNN said.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM

  (0+)

We want checks and balances otherwise it is just more disinfo.

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM

  (0+)

I want to do my own checking and balancing.

Thank you for the invitation and kindness!

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM

  (0+)

a HUGE part of the problem in America IMHO is most people DO not do any checking for themselves. They just believe whatever they see/read and run with it.

You are very welcome. 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM

  (0+)

I for one am tired of the creep towards ant-semitism that is now starting to inflict even the Left. Why, because of the Israeli neo-con lobbyists? They are no worse than corporations' or other neo-con groups'; and certainly not monolithic in regards to the opinions of the Jewish people. To stave off the inevitable reply: YES we get it that zionists are not Jewish people: But what some don't get is that the general perception is that attacking one is the same as attacking the other. And in politics perception is what matters. Sometimes when most paranoid i suspect this is being done by shills who are trying to infiltrate and discredit the Progressives for future anti-semetic smears. We surely don't need that distraction, we have enough REAL enemies lol ;) And although i have vocally disagreed with Rob's posts & comments in the past, he has since published me. And i am by far not the only one in that category. So we can surmise that his reasons for rejecting work are in the interests of good journalism and not personal pique.

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM

  (0+)

Every time I submit something I always wonder if it will be accepted. I appreciate the work of all the editors and Rob Kall at OpEd News for their hard work. This forum gives me an opportunity to express myself as a writer and as an American with some very liberal and progressive opinions. This is because I want our country to run well for all of us. I expect to get rejected sometimes; this will help me improve my delivery and style. Please keep up the good work and thank you, everyone.

by Lance L. Landon (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 41 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 3:48:01 PM

  (0+)

I depend upon rigorous editing to separate wheat from chaff.  Dependable  editing is one of the principal reasons I visit OpEd News, daily, and support it financially.  Freedom of speech does not include the right to have one's juvenilia published in national magazines.  Freedom of choice, though, does include the freedom to meet a publication's editorial guidlines, or not, and to choose rewriting over rejection (I got jected, then I got re-jected!).

I read the article in question and found it to be sophomoric in every possible aspect, unworthy of publication and unworthy of my time.  I'm frankly surprised that anyone gave this bumwad a second's thought.

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 4:18:11 PM

  (0+)

I like your attitude. :-)

I get in wild moods too.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:22:31 PM

  (0+)