In light of a couple recent posts which I deleted, it’s a good idea to discuss what is and is not appropriate for IPR articles. To be clear, I’m not referring to comments, and these “guidelines” are open for discussion. Please add your thoughts to the comments.
First, regarding the article(s) in question, the author wrote about himself. My favorite authors on IPR write about what’s going on with others. This creates some level of objectivity in the reporting. The way I see it, if you want to write a post about yourself, you should do it on your own blog. If you want IPR to publish an article about you or what you’re doing, then contact one of the other authors to see if they’re interested in the story.
Second, regarding problems in the somewhat distant past that pose a danger of resurfacing, we have to be careful not to violate copyrights. Along the same lines, it’s generally bad in the eyes of Google and other search engines if articles are just copied from other websites. See Google on Duplicate Content. Some think this is the reason IPR is not in Google News. I think it might be one of the reasons, but there are others.
So on that point, I have a suggestion (and for now it’s only a suggestion). For any article that will quote significantly from another online source, this might be a better approach:
- Write an introductory paragraph (or two) in your own words describing what this is about and perhaps why it matters to IPR readers;
- Include a limited quote from the source, such as the first couple sentences or the portion you feel is most important for IPR readers;
- If you want to include more quotes from the source, write additional text in your own words to accompany each portion, saying why you think that portion is also important for IPR readers or how it plays into the context of what you’re writing;
- Include a link to the original source, perhaps at the bottom of the article.
Note that press releases are a bit of an exception. There’s no copyright issue. I still think it’s better if the IPR article has some additional description by the reporter, and perhaps if only the most important bits are included along with a link to the full release on its original site.
Third, there has been some discussion about a role for opinion/editorial articles. I think they might be good for the site, but it’s my impression that most of the community does not like the idea. I can see the argument that IPR is really more about third-party news (i.e. inner workings of the parties) rather than about people spouting off their opinions. Maybe it’s deeper than that. I’d like to hear more from IPR readers. Please tell me what you think in the comments.
32 responses so far ↓
1 jrichards // Nov 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Actually, thanks for the guidelines. I am in the process of submitting/writing the first of many articles for the Reform Party and I have been reviewing recent articles on the site to get a feel for how things were written here.
I have not finished the article I am working on because I composed it more in an AP style/journalistic manner and it seemed as if most were editorial’s, or simple announcements.
To build credibility for this site as a news source and to build credibility for all the parties that contribute, I think the guidelines posted above are correct.
2 NewFederalist // Nov 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm
I would hope Red Phillips will pick up Cody’s story about the “Clarion Call” effort. I agree that Cody should not author his own story but the story itself is of interest. BTW Cody… welcome baaack!
3 Jill Pyeatt // Nov 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I’ll post it, if Cody wants to send it to me; jill@jillpyeatt.com
4 Wes Benedict // Nov 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Warren, I have posted several articles over the past few months about the PACs I run. Let me know if you want me to stop posting articles about PACs I run in the future. Thanks.
5 Gene Berkman // Nov 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm
The guidelines are well thought out and will be useful in helping all our writers in the future.
The tendency to just repost content from other sites is a corallary to the instapundit technic of just running a single line with a link to another post. It is quick, but sorta lazy, which I say because I have done it alot myself, here and at my blog.
It is also tempting because often other people put the issue very clearly, and you want to let people know about their insights.
6 Jeremy C. Young // Nov 20, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I generally agree with Warren’s guidelines; however, I also think it should be fine for an authorized press agent to post campaign press releases so long as the volume is not overwhelming. Brian Irving did this very well for the Lee Wrights campaign, and Bruce Cohen also did it occasionally for Wayne Root. I think aggregating that information is useful, and those threads often got their fair share of comments. Frankly, I’d love to see that sort of material from the GP or smaller third parties as well.
Regarding the editorial issue, I think the occasional editorial is fine, but it should come from Warren only (or an editor-in-chief, if he designates one). That is, the editorial should reflect the editorial line of the establishment, it shouldn’t just be from some random contributor. Warren has earned the right to post editorial content (actually, he’s paid for it!) but I wouldn’t want to see it from anyone else.
7 PeterO // Nov 20, 2012 at 5:01 pm
You are the publisher and editor. Set clear standards and create a style guide for writers, not just “suggestions”.
8 Stewart Flood // Nov 20, 2012 at 7:48 pm
I believe he’s trying to be the “benevolent dictator” that most good managing editors try to be.
He’s taking over an existing publication with a staff and readership that he wants to support and improve.
9 Cody Quirk // Nov 20, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Jill…. We’ll talk.
10 Cody Quirk // Nov 20, 2012 at 9:20 pm
This is probably my last comment, ever, here on IPR, even though it might get censored or removed-
I can understand moderating the comments on here- but having my articles removed (or to be put before popular opinion on whether to be removed, or not), because of being ‘unprofessional’ is not only taboo in my view, but smacks of media censorship and of un-Libertarian behavior.
I offered to edit my entire last article, yet Mr. Redlich wouldn’t accept my compromise.
Plus after speaking to him on phone; I refuse to work under a character with that kind of attitude and Ivory-Tower opinion.
Therefore, I’m voluntary leaving IPR on my own for good in a principled protest on the right to Free Speech- I’m not going to play any rigged game here when it comes to what I ‘can’ and ‘can’t’ post, or even comment on.
I know my critics on IPR will be happy with my permanent absence. However, I’ll simply be spouting off elsewhere that has more fair standards on free speech.
No need for me to say anymore here-
Goodbye, and Póg mo thóin!
11 Marzak // Nov 20, 2012 at 10:06 pm
There’s only a handful of ivory towers in Palm Beach, I’ll bet that Warren doesn’t live in one of them,, if you don’t know him let me say that the site couldn’t be in better managmmaent.
12 Jeremy C. Young // Nov 20, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Welp, that was fun while it lasted.
13 wredlich // Nov 20, 2012 at 11:48 pm
I did not refuse Cody’s compromise. I told him I wanted to see the response to this post and hear from the community.
Cody was enraged by this. He had no interest in waiting. He had to have it his way immediately. Jill had already posted her comment offering to post for him but the anger overcame everything.
He did not seem to understand the concept of objectivity – that writing an article about himself, describing himself in glowing language (“Cody Quirk is a hard-working Nevadan”) is inappropriate.
And he didn’t care in the slightest that this site has a community and communities have standards. That’s why I posted this article and others, to get your feedback.
I’m not just going to impose my rules without asking. If I do that I lose all of you and I paid a lot of money for nothing.
14 wredlich // Nov 20, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Wes, you’re fine. If I see something I’ll let you know but I doubt that’ll happen.
Marzak – no ivory tower but we did get a very nice McMansion at a good price. Gated community, pool and lake in the back, palm trees. Paradise. And in the universe of homeowners associations, far below average in totalitarianism.
15 wredlich // Nov 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Jeremy – Yes campaign and party press releases are fine. I’d still like some additional commentary so it’s not pure duplicate content, but I’ll let it go. The user comments help with that anyway.
And based on these responses and past conversations, editorials will be rare. Not what the site is about.
16 Matt Cholko // Nov 20, 2012 at 11:58 pm
In order to minimze the chance of this kind of thing happening in the future, I think that you should set clear standards, rather than suggestions. With that said, I think you’re taking the right approach in talking with IPR users about what those standards should be.
So, my opinion: Take your time, come up with some good, clear standards of what is and is not acceptable. Then, show your benevolence by gently enforcing them, and changing them as necessary.
I think you’d also do well to keep asking the IPR community for feedback, even months and years from now.
17 just a reader // Nov 21, 2012 at 12:39 am
1. The guidelines are perfectly reasonable. Good luck with Google News.
2. I’m not sure who Cody Quirk is exactly, but his histrionic personality type is common in third parties and contribute to their failure.
18 Trent Hill // Nov 21, 2012 at 2:35 am
I didn’t see the article in question (or if I did, I didn’t read it), but it sounds like Cody shot himself in the foot with his very first post–and then got pissed upon being called on it.
He never did this when working under me, but I do know that others have complained of him having a temper. Warren–don’t sweat the small stuff. These types of things will happen.
19 wredlich // Nov 21, 2012 at 7:24 am
I’m not sweating it. I’ve had about 50 jury trials and I’ve appeared in hundreds of courts. So I get yelled at by cops, prosecutors and judges who threaten to send my clients (usually) to state prison.
So Cody did not bother me in the slightest. Since my daughter was in the car during the conversation, this was an opportunity to explain objective vs. subjective. That’ll help on the SAT in a few years.
20 wredlich // Nov 21, 2012 at 7:27 am
One of my old blog posts about a less than pleasant judge: http://albany-lawyer.blogspot.com/2006/08/profile-bully.html
21 Kimberly Wilder // Nov 21, 2012 at 7:28 am
I think the suggestions are good. And, perhaps, you should tease out the most important parts out to be “rules”.
I do not think people should post directly about themselves. But…
Since we are such an overlooked community, I wonder if someone should be allowed to re-post something about themselves written at an independent site? Reason – some of us may be candidates or party leaders. We may get a little press somewhere, and want to magnify it quickly here. It is just a thought.
Also, maybe we should say exactly if we can write about our friends/colleagues/family members/co-conspirators. Sometimes I like to write stories to quote or support stories about my husband (Secretary of a local Green Party) Not sure if it is completely objective. But, again, third parties need extra support. And, I try to mention it is my husband. (So, a possible rule could include disclosure.)
I think the beginnings of things are always difficult. When you change the ch’i, there will be some conflict or shifts. Maybe time will sort things out.
22 JQ2inTX // Nov 21, 2012 at 8:59 am
I agree as well that a community needs to have some guidelines. Free speech is fine in the abstract but in reality there are always editors and rules about what can and cannot be said on any site. Try posting on Red State, liberals are not welcome. That said, I like the free flow of ideas here and hope to eventually try my hand at posting as well. I am presently very much interested in seeing the coalescing of the various Conservative/Constitution parties. It is high time the Dempublicans learned that the real folks outside of DC have had enough.
Keep up the good work.
23 wolfefan // Nov 21, 2012 at 10:39 am
I’m disappointed to see Cody leave, if in fact he chooses to stay away. While his politics aren’t mine, I appreciate his writing and his efforts. Casting this as some sort of free speech issue isn’t worthy of him. The constitutional guarantee of free speech isn’t about the right to go on private property and say anything you want over the objections of the owner.
24 Stewart Flood // Nov 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm
I read the article. I found it to be completely self-serving and outside of accepted standards of journalism.
From my memory of Mr Quirk when he posted here in the past, and from this first “new” article of his, his ego appears to have grown while he was away.
Mr Redlich is going about it the right way. He doesn’t want “a lot of money” to go to waste. It isn’t Mr Quirk’s money, it is Mr Redlich’s.
25 NewFederalist // Nov 22, 2012 at 8:48 am
“Póg mo thóin!”
Really? Why burn bridges? The alternative party movement is divided enough.
26 Spencer Awes // Nov 22, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Thank you for the guidelines. As to your call for feedback on editorial and opinion articles, I’d encourage a section for just that, either using an editorial board to curate the posts, or using a softward that self curates the page for the most part based on viewership, while retaining some space for the editorial board to give prominence to minority opinions that represent well presented statements. – Spencer Awes
27 Mark Axinn // Nov 23, 2012 at 11:57 am
Warren and others–
I would avoid editorial content on IPR. This site is for reporting the inner workings of various third parties and how to mutually improve our public exposure. For us to editorialize about issues where there is going to be tremendous disagreement (the Green New Deal, End the Fed, abortion, immigration) would be to take this site to a very different level which does not conform to its purpose.
28 Warren Redlich // Nov 23, 2012 at 1:24 pm
@Mark and others: I wasn’t thinking about editorials on policy issues, as to which policy approach is best for something of substance like abortion.
I was thinking more of editorials about what third parties should do (either a specific party like the LP or the GP, or third parties in general) politically.
Like this one: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/11/2016-and-the-one-state-strategy-a-what-if-scenario/
But nevertheless, I have seen significant concerns expressed by the community against editorials, so don’t expect to see many of them. It will be rare if at all.
29 Mark Axinn // Nov 23, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Thanks; agree completely.
Actually, I did not realize the one-state-policy piece was an editorial. Certainly, debating the pros and cons of strategies such as that is exactly what this site is all about.
30 paulie // Nov 23, 2012 at 8:59 pm
We’ve done that in the past. I would not classify a what-if as an editorial either.
31 Matt Cholko // Nov 24, 2012 at 3:36 am
Yeah, I have no problem with articles like that one. The one concern I did have with it was that the author published his own work. Previously, this has been against IPR policy, as I understood it.
32 paulie // Nov 24, 2012 at 8:01 am
It’s against IPR policy to publish one’s own editorials, and that hasn’t changed. But I don’t think this is an editorial. It’s a “what if we did this…” without the author saying that we should or shouldn’t. So in my mind it does not cross the line into being an editorial.
Leave a Comment