Today, one of our editors rejected an article, seeing it as not meeting the writing standards of OpEdNews.
The editor felt that the article was sophomoric and mean spirited.
Editors who reject articles are kept anonymous, to protect them from angry, abusive rejectees-- something we decided on after losing a few editors who didn't want to put up with the abuse. So, as I have come to expect, the author wrote back to me, which is where the buck stops, here on OpEdNews. Here's what the writer emailed to me:
I knew you would pass on this article. Other blogs published it........you're the only one who didn't.
I bet that makes you feel good.
You ever heard of freedom of speech?
I know freedom of speech does not exist free in your forum. You have decided it was "too offensive," for your taste. Oh yes, you have made a decision for everyone else that it is too offensive for their tastes too. Lovely huh?
UnAmerican. Your "feelings" supercede and eviscerate my 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights in your forum.
You'd be surprised how many people know you routinely abrogate one's 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights.
All it takes is something you find "offensive."
Here's what I replied, with a little bit taken out to protect the anonymity of the writer:
I knew you'd write to complain and hoped you wouldn't go off the deep end. It appears you're almost ready to take that leap. I encourage you to take a few breaths and wait 24 hours before firing all your guns. And keep in mind that I like you, like your passion and energy. But you go overboard sometimes. It's okay to go overboard. But when you engage in pushing edges, like you do, you're going to bump up against resistance sometime. That's what happened today. You are smart enough to realize this and expect it, without getting angry. Then again, maybe you're not angry, I hope, just taking this step to push back against the rejection. It didn't work.
Actually, I didn't reject your article. One of our 27 volunteer editors rejected it for being not meeting our writing quality criteria. And first amendment rights have nothing to do with publishing. You have the right to SAY what you want. We have the right to reject any content we want and have no obligation to amplify what YOU say.
When I saw your article was rejected, I knew I'd hear from you, so I asked why.
I'm not sure you can handle it, but honestly, you ought to consider this feedback a gift and, I am dead serious about this, take the feedback and think about it, not get angry or defensive. You want to make a difference and reach people. This is how a respected editor, a very experienced, highly competent editor, who has published every other article you've submitted, saw this article.
...it was not particularly good writing and was rather sophomoric ...Seemed like something written from a frat house - including how (the writer) ended it. I reject very few pieces and just didn't feel this one was up to the site, not even diary-worthy.
I'm attempting to be a bit more selective with articles... And while it wasn't as nasty as some, I think this mean spirited, attack mode that has reared its head on more than one occasion on OpEd, should be tamed slightly. This piece was just childish to me and didn't have any redeeming value to the site.
OF those other sites (that accepted the article,) how many reached over 600,000 unique visitors last month. We have standards here and they do vary, from editor to editor. I trust this editor's judgment, and the editor has approved your articles in the past. So don't go chasing conspiracy theories.
And please keep in mind that I wouldn't take the time to give you such a detailed response if I didn't feel you were worth the investment. Don't return the respect I'm giving you with abuse. I won't tolerate it.
The writer responded with these words:
First of all, I'm not angry because I don't take these things personally because you don't personally know me from the man on the moon.
Thanks Rob for taking time to reply to me. And yes, I figured it wasn't you who rejected my article.
I appreciate you publishing my articles you have published.
It is what it is, Rob.....and you have your opinion and I have mine. No problemeskos.
Let me ask you this:
Do you sincerely believe you are NOT violating my free speech rights by refusing to publish this particular article?
Frankly, not all writers will take feedback. They come back with nasty namecalling, at which point, I ban them from the site. I refuse to take that kind of abuse. So I was very pleased that this writer responded in a calm reasonable way. But that still leaves the issue of freedom of speech hanging. Here's my reply:
Rights to free speech give YOU the right to speak or write, not the privilege of getting your ideas published.
Free Speech gives ME the right to publish the writings that I choose, and prevents the government and people who want to shut me or OpEdnews up, from stopping me or opednews.
Of course, at OpEdNews, there are 27 volunteer editors (we could use more. Some only work an hour or two every month or two) and each editor takes a different approach to articles. I think that's healthy. There are articles I don't like, that I might reject, that I'll leave to other editors to decide. Or sometimes, editors will, in the queue, leave a comment on an article, asking other editors to take a look and add their opinion, before accepting or rejecting the article. (It's a pretty cool editing/content management system.)
We are trying, here at OpEdNews.com, to accomplish a lot of things at once-- -build a cordial, civil digital community -establish a credible, respected media site -enable a very wide range of discussion on as many issues as possible -empower progressive activists and organizations. -support the publication of writings with a "we the people" approach to being open to writings for anyone who can write well and present new ideas, angles and or information.
This is a big experiment and we're all on a steep learning curve, at least for parts of the project.
As we are growing, it is inevitable that we will make mistakes, and that we'll attract some crazy, some nasty, some hateful and toxic people. Fortunately, these have not been coming out of the woodwork... yet. We have banned a bit more than 50 people in the past 30+ months, out of millions who have come to the site. I don't think that's a bad batting average.
We're very open to suggestions on how to do things better-- what TO do and what NOT to do.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
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 (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 77 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 2:28:27 PM
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 (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 77 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 2:34:03 PM
You do a fine job of editing material at OpEdNews.
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 (47 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 174 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 2:34:42 PM
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 (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 300 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 2:40:05 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 2:48:47 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 2:56:34 PM
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 (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 2:57:44 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 3:04:45 PM
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 (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 3:52:58 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 4:32:52 PM
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 (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 3:06:22 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 3:19:27 PM
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 (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 3:55:54 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 4:21:03 PM
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.
My point is, that polite questioning regarding the reason for a rejection can provide the writer with more information about his/her item content failing, or will get the submission reviewed by someone else. This last is apparently what occurred in my case.
And of course, as others including Rob have pointed out, your freedom (currently) in the US is to be able say what you want without the restriction of government. No one is required to provide you with space on their platform/website to do so.
-- **Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (19 articles, 3 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 116 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 4:50:56 PM
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 (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 8:52:36 PM
....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 (4 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 3:34:34 PM
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 (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 3:57:57 PM
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, February 11, 2008 at 4:01:03 PM
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 (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 4:03:33 PM
