I wrote a piece for a mainstream outlet (not the NYT), mentioning the sexual assault allegations against Roy Moore. Some nervous lawyer edited it to "sexual misconduct." I said, okay, pull my piece. They reverted back to "sexual assault." Writers, don't let them lawyer you down.
-
-
Positive update: the editor at the outlet has contacted me, and they are assuring me that they will fix the procedure so that lawyer changes go through editors (with news judgment!) so the default isn't censorship by pointless, legalistic caution.
Show this thread -
It wasn't in the title but in the piece but whenever I can, I negotiate title as hard as I can, and recommend everyone try to do so! Title is what most people see of your piece! Shouldn't be unilaterally up to the publication.https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/938196388386615297 …
Show this thread -
"Misconduct" covers such a wide range that I believe using the word to lump together everything from the smallest transgression to sexual assault, molestation of minors and rape is a form of censorship via conflation, and corruption of thought.https://twitter.com/ahmetb/status/938145445305466880 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How does one 'harshly punish' false accusations without putting accusers on trial?
-
I am not completely certain how to proceed, honestly, because there are trade-offs to any path here. But how to guard against deliberately false accusations should be a high priority, and I thought this before the Veritas/WaPo debacle. Just the beginning.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
