[Peace-discuss] Re: Public i article

[C. G. Estabrook]

I received a call today from Belden Fields, on behalf of the Public i. 
(I'm told that Belden funds much of the Public i out of his pocket, 
although I don't know if that's so.)  He told that me the Public i would 
publish my article if and only if I would state in writing that I would 
*not* "sue for damages an editor who violates the clear conditions under 
which I submitted the piece."

Belden explained that they wanted such a statement because they were "so 
often close to the line" -- because apparently they were afraid of being 
sued over their reporting on local, particularly police, issues.

That made (and makes) no sense to me.  The matters seem in no way 
connected.  As far as I can tell, they simply wanted me to withdraw in 
writing the conditions under which I submitted the piece -- or at least 
my right to insist on those conditions.  They would then be free to 
alter the comment on the Clinton administration to which Bob Illyes 
objected.

Naturally I refused.  The Public i should declare its politics openly, 
instead of defending them tacitly by making way for tendentious editing.

--CGE


C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Bob quotes accurately my recent message to Brian (cc to Bob), but he 
> omits what went before.  (And his conflation of this matter with an 
> unrelated issue at WEFT I can only ascribe to personal animus.)
> 
> AWARE was contacted on 3/12 by Brian Dolinar, who wrote, "We're planning 
> an anti-war issue of the Public i for April ... Can anyone in AWARE 
> contribute an article?"  I volunteered, and on 3/22 sent him an article 
> with the following note: "Brian-- The article is appended.  I am happy 
> to give publici permission to publish it as it stands or with cuts 
> and/or changes approved by me. I would not want it published with cuts 
> or changes that I haven't approved.  Regards, Carl"
> 
> Brian and I in fact discussed two rounds of cuts and changes, one 
> substantial, and I sent him a final text with his proposed changes on 
> 3/23.  Two weeks later, I heard casually that Bob (not Brian) had cut 
> out a paragraph about the Clinton administration that he didn't like.  I 
> wrote to Brian to remind him of the conditions under which the piece had 
> been submitted: "Brian-- ...I'm disturbed by a passing comment I heard 
> about editing the current public i, for which you have a piece from me. 
>  As I told you, I'm willing to have the piece published either as it 
> stands (after the revisions I sent you) or with revisions approved by 
> me, but not otherwise. I trust the casual comment I heard about 
> unauthorized changes in the piece is mistaken. Regards, Carl"
> 
> Brian replied "I've passed your article over to Bob due to being so busy 
> with police issues. Bob - please make contact with Carl @ article." 
> There was no mention of the conditions and I did not hear from Bob, so I 
> wrote to Brian (cc to Bob), "Fine, so long as he understands that the 
> public i does not have permission to publish the piece with changes or 
> excisions that I have not approved.  I take this matter seriously and 
> will sue for damages an editor who violates the clear conditions under 
> which I submitted the piece."
> 
> Regards, CGE
> 
> 
> illyes at uiuc.edu wrote:
>> I didn't cc Carl's exact threat to the list last night. Here it is:
>>
>> "the public i does not have permission to publish the piece with
>> changes or excisions that I have not approved.  I take this matter
>> seriously and will sue for damages an  editor who violates the clear
>> conditions under which I submitted the  piece. --CGE"
>>
>> As I said yesterday, I think it Carl has submitted a fine article
>> except for one paragraph that needs some work. I've edited articles
>> that I disagree with (with isn't even the case with this article
>> overall) with no complaint from the author. This threat is sufficient
>> reason to reject the article, and an insult to the Public i editorial
>> process.
>>
>> I had hoped to talk to Carl at the Main Event yesterday, but didn't
>> see him. I now see that it would have been a waste of breath.
>>
>> I was with Randall and a bunch of supporters including Carl trying to
>> do something about Randall's banishment from WEFT. Carl's comments to
>> the board included a threat to sue! I cannot imagine how Carl thought
>> this would help Randall's case..... This is all too weird for words.
>>
>> Bob
>