[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Public i article

Sat Apr 14 19:26:47 CDT 2007

I said explicitly from the beginning that the Public i might publish the 
article as it was or with changes that we had agreed upon.  I was told 
by a third party that they were possibly preparing to publish it with 
the paragraph Bob objected to removed, without my consent. I pointed out 
that they were not allowed to do that.

As to "threats," it would have been idle of me to specify conditions and 
not be willing to act on their violation.  --CGE

Linda Evans wrote:
> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss