[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Public i article

[Linda Evans]

I personally think the Public i (I have said as much
to at least two Public i editors) should print your
article Carl.  I feel like your article is being
targeted by Bob for personal reasons, but I also think
Bob is open to dialog on the issue.  I don't think
they want to edit against your terms as much as they
don't like to be threatened with a lawsuit.  People
don't take that type of threat as idle and that will
make people (especially a small non-profit working on
a shoestring budget) nervous and defensive.  If you
say you don't want something edited for content
without giving your okay on the final draft, my
experience with the Public i is that your wishes will
be respected.  If you mention lawyers, they aren't
going to want to mess with printing something you
submit and I think, understandably so.  I would love
for your article to be in the Public i and they are
all reasonable people.  Go to a meeting and state your
case if they are against a paragraph and they may be
able to see your side.  I would be happy to come as
well and support the inclusion of the paragraph as
written.  I do not support threats.

Good luck and I hope to see you in print soon.

Linda
--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Public i article
> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:20:05 -0500
> From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


Linda 
http://triballife.net/  A Marketplace for a Better World

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com