Friday, June 05, 2015

New Examiner "Review" Criteria May Explain What Staff Refuses To

Long-time readers who have supported my work deserve an explanation, so here's an update for those of you who have been wondering what's going on with Gun Rights Examiner. Sorry it's so long -- there are many pieces to consider.

I've been writing for them since 2008, and never had a column pulled before. Now they've sunk two in a row, and have clammed up on their reason, to boot.

A full week after Examiner.com "unpublished" my Hastert column, and five days after they torpedoed my follow-up column about a media subscriber news service including that story in an alert to members, they still have not responded to multiple inquiries asking why. That's in spite of their instruction to "Contact support with any questions."

That they would  let a content provider spend hours researching, writing, publishing and publicizing an article, pull it, and then go into hiding, is indicative of the "leadership" routinely endured over the years, and leads to natural speculation as to what "offense" against "standards" could have possibly occurred this time. If tough to know what's allowable when anti-gun "progressives" are permitted to outright lie and call gun owners who believe in their rights "ammosexuals" (that's actually a keyword tag on the Examiner site).

It looks like that assumption was wrong -- albeit with no explanation followed by the silent treatment, it was an understandable conclusion to jump to. They just sent out an email to their list defining new criteria for both acceptability of an article as "newsworthy," as well as general editorial criteria for all articles.

Understand that Examiner does not submit all articles to the Google news feed. They have requirements, like the story must be under 48 hours old, you have to link to sources they consider credible, you can't reference other Examiner links, you can't use the first person, etc. That's been understood, even if it's self-defeating for those of us who actually dig out stories on our own, as opposed to linking to what someone else has uncovered and rewording it to take advantage of keyword and topic trending. In other words, those of us doing investigative journalism, where we are the ones breaking stories, and where we have nothing else to refer to as a source but our own prior work, are penalized for deviating from the content farm model.

They now appear to be extending that to all articles, not just the ones submitted to the news feeds. And it appears not complying with "review criteria" they just sent out today may be the reason behind "unpublishing" articles published a week ago.

Their criteria, incidentally, corroborate the valuing of search ranking manipulation over content. Case in point, from the Examiner Support Center "Basic Editorial Requirement writing Tips":
Please refrain from using one-sentence paragraphs, paragraphs consisting of only a few short sentences or paragraphs made up of incomplete sentences whenever possible. Google rejects pieces that are formatted that way.
Compare that to Purdue University's Online Writing Lab, teaching journalism students how to write:
Tips for Writing a Lead ... Brevity: Readers want to know why the story matters to them and they won’t wait long for the answer. Leads are often one sentence, sometimes two.
The "review criteria" also list some of the "sins" committed in my Hastert and follow-up articles:
Self-promotion: Not allowed in article content. No click-baiting or product marketing is permitted ... Third Person: Avoid first-person references ("I," "me," "my," etc.) The focus of the article should be on the story, not on the person writing it.
That depends on the meaning of the term "self-promotion." and the qualifications of  the person making that assessment. My columns never contain "click-baiting or product marketing." What they do contain are references to original work that no one else has uncovered, and if not called to reader attention, will remain unknown to everyone but me. We certainly know the "mainstream media" has no interest unless it's to take a story uncovered by small fry, bigfoot it, and claim it as their own.

Yes, my Hastert story contained a link to one of my articles from 16 years ago, an open letter I wrote to him (that was subsequently published in a Libertarian Party publication at the request of one of their officials), and that necessitated a first-person reference. It couldn't be helped.

Everybody and his brother are "reporting" on the Hastert scandal and charges the guy's got himself embroiled in. Not one writer was informing gun owners about his betrayal of their interests when he was Speaker, and how in spite of that, he was still given an "A" rating from NRA. That's legitimate information for a gun rights advocacy readership to be aware of. It's not my fault no one else knew about and was reporting that. I guess the Examiner solution for original and unique offerings is to "unpublish" and suppress them.

Using that criteria, that reference to self or to prior works of original investigative journalism is verboten, let's look at some of the other stuff, allowed in the past, but now evidently in violation of the new criteria:

My FOIA-based exposé on the fake Ceasefire "PSA" that yielded a permit saying “Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store” comes immediately to mind. It included my email correspondence with the Mayor's Office and also linked to my piece at The Shooters' Log. Is that "self-promotion" or is that telling and expanding on a dimension of a national interest story no one else is? And for that matter, if they're going to be consistent why hasn't that article been "unpublished"?

How about my other stories resulting from FOIA requests I filed? Who is going to report on those if not me? We know the "partial response" I got from ATF proved a whistleblower had been called on the carpet for talking to the Senate. We also know the Senate was publicly pressured -- by me -- to interview and protect Gunwalker whistleblowers in the first place.

As a matter of fact, look at all the reporting Mike Vanderboegh and I did on this before anyone in major media said word one about Fast and Furious. By Examiner's "review criteria," this all needs to be pulled from the site. And future stories -- and Mike has arranged to share documentation with me on a huge one -- cannot, as a matter of their "rules," appear there.

So what else, just off the top of my head, must go?

It looks like I can't tell readers how ATF claimed -- to me -- an Administrative Procedures Act exemption from their recent ammo ban "framework" trial balloon. Nor can I tell them how -- after my reports -- the "real reporters" discovered the B. Todd Jones leaving ATF for NFL story, or the Armatix management split story, or how an anti-gun "filmmaker" broke the law regarding bringing imitation firearm onto school premises without permission, or...

Nor can I include links in future articles to information vital to understanding a complex and ongoing story that appears nowhere else, such as the series of reports I have done containing exclusive information on the Reese family case, John Shipley, ATF's Vince Cefalu and Jay Dobyns, the '68 GCA and other legal challenges, and those are just off the top of my  head as topics where I have to refer and link to earlier reports I posted in order to validate claims. And who knows what this will do to the innumerable source documents I alone have archived on Scribd? How is linking to my account there not "self-promotion"?

I guess I can forget about telling you things I'd like you to help be a force multiplier for. That's a major reason I do this, to provide information that no one else does or will, and to then rely on activist readers to help me bypass "legitimate media" gatekeepers. And sometimes, the action just happens to center on my activities. So if I interview Rand Paul, or appear on a television panel, or get interviewed on a network show, or help write lyrics to a song for a political video produced by a multiple-award winning filmmaker and premiering on a nationally-syndicated radio program, or give a speech in front of a state house, those are all things I'm evidently no longer allowed to tell regular readers about in my column -- a column I started and expanded to a national presence on the premise and promise that I could.

That's in spite of a pledge made to me by Examiner only three months ago after one of their reviewers had rejected my ATF ammo ban piece from news feed submission on the grounds that I did not link to a recognized news source.

"As for the main premise of my story having no link, what am I supposed to do when this is original investigative journalism based my telephone conversation held today with an ATF official identified as the point of contact on a new proposed rule?" I asked. "There IS no other source to link to, as no one else has this development but me. I repeat: What am I to do?"

This was the last official word received on the matter:

Click to enlarge
I guess the "welcome" has been pulled back, or at least my being able to identify myself as the one who made the story happen in the first place, and to reference and link to an exclusive in follow-up reports.

Several of you have reached out to me, asking if I want you to do anything, maybe write to Examiner. Thanks, but no. These conditions are intolerable. I'm probably going to need to post a bare minimum article once a month just to keep them from declaring my account inactive and not sharing page view revenues from past articles, but it looks like their rules will no longer allow me to do much of the original stuff that requires self-referencing and linking.

How this will play out and if I'll land anywhere else is anybody's guess, but it doesn't look promising. Ultimately, I have to admit the failure to figure a way out of the box is mine, as my stuff is unacceptable to big boy media as well as to "lobby groups." That's because I do this to say what I want to say.

I'll keep writing for the magazine as long as they want me, and also do occasional contract assignments that don't dictate information-stifling restrictions, but without a replacement gig, this is probably going to require stepping back and refocusing energies on something that values my efforts enough to actually pay the bills. For now, look for this blog and all of my social media activity to be limited to dreaded "self-promotion."

UPDATE: Well, that was quick. At least it shows they can move when motivated. They fired me, and warned me not to show anyone the termination notice because that would violate a confidentiality agreement.  I'll match their agreement violations over the years against mine if they want to pursue this, because I maintain this is definitely in the interests of pursuing a story about cheesy Examiner.com practices:

[Click to enlarge]


29 comments:

  1. Sad day I've enjoyed reading your articles. I'll look for you in the mags for now...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This would be why I stopped writing there - poor management, lousy pay for a lot of work, and no help for anything other than being a content farm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As if everything the MSM does isn't itself blatant self-promotion? What they really want you to do is flagrantly promote THEM! Of that you will get no complaints I assure you. They need you more than you need them because you are actually an investigative journalist. They would not have agreed to have you write for them if that was not the case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oregon Firearms Federation is one "lobby group" that will always embrace your stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Buck Cassidy6/05/2015 5:08 PM

    Please keep us up to date David, and we will keep you and your family in our thoughts and prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Buck Cassidy6/05/2015 5:55 PM

    This doesn't pass the smell test. Has Bloomberg's money found a way to Examiner's inner circle? A possible solution to silence your original reporting and exposays. Just saying, if they can't compete, purchase and silence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I doubt that. Examiner has been a bunch of f***heads for years. Just when you think they can't screw up any more, they prove how versatile they are at sucking. My columns never had enough real reach to worry the antis. It always took someone else reporting my story after the fact to get it to register on the public's radar.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David, I just subscribed to GUNS, and sent the editor an e-mail to confirm that your Rights Watch column was my reason for buying their magazine in the first place. Good stuff!

    I also appreciate your support of Mike Vanderboegh's work. Prayers said for you to land on your feet, so to speak.

    Scott B.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Honestly, I don't know how you tolerated them for this long. I stopped writing for them years ago after they kept tweaking their "algorithm" so that they could keep paying less for more page views, and then lied about it. I finally had to tell them to leave me alone and stop emailing me all their "tips" and such. A tragedy, and a poorly run company for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry the vindictive jerks fired you David! They did the same thing to me, AFTER requesting that I take on two other writing jobs for them, then continued to lambaste me for the content of my main writing post; it had to do with Islamic doctrine vs Christian doctrine, and well, take a guess on which side they came down?

    Denver is a Progressive haven, just as Seattle is, so now that you're gone, they'll probably try to can Workman as well, and the others.......can't have two sides to a story; not when you only want one of those sides to be heard.

    You'll do well; talent, brains, and drive, like quality cream, always rises to the top!

    ReplyDelete
  11. If Dave Workman or Kurt Hoffman begin having articles held back as well, I will believe that this is a systematic anti-gun effort. It's no secret that the so-called "gun safety" advocates would like to shut the debate down. Like so many other progs, they think freedom of speech applies only to themselves.

    I hope you find a new home for your articles, many of which truly deserve the descriptor "groundbreaking".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Claire Wolfe6/06/2015 10:08 AM

    What an outrage, David. And what fools they are to drive out someone as valuable and original as you. Between this and your earlier principled departure from JPFO, it appears you're having the professional year from hell.

    I wish I had more to offer, but I can only hope you'll not only land on your feet but land on higher ground than Examiner ever offered.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Have you considered starting a venue for not only your columns, but for other (actual) pro-gun writers? It could be based on the promise of what Examiner was to be, but never was- but centered on guns. I realize starting something like that would divert your energy from writing for a while, but in the long run it might be worth it. A gun news site with no Fudds or Gottliebs could become the go-to source for credible information, and the target of the whining anti-liberty bigots.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A company that is deplorable. Condolences for you. I also met a company from such. I was off work and become a blogger write a review on products

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, I guess that lands examiner.com in my adblock list of rejected web sites.
    Wouldn't want to give them a page view that an advertiser might pay for.

    Seriously, what good is a news outlet that bans its writers from producing original journalism?

    ReplyDelete
  16. So sorry to hear of your woes David. You were the one who got me involved in writing for the Examiner. Those were the good days. It tears me up inside to watch what I thought was an excellent place for conservatives, gun rights advocates, and liberty oriented writers could find a home. Make me wonder what on earth happened. Let's stay in touch, and my prayers are with you.
    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to say I never had much use for examiner, although I visited there occasionally (that will stop). Maybe it's the Iron Law of Bureaucracy operating here. Hoffman ought not to wait to leave until he is canned.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My main complaint about them for a couple of years has been their pop up/over/under/wherever ads that make it almost impossible to read an article. Now this.

    No more time will be wasted on them, nor on anybody who advertises with them (their main source of revenue). In this time of emailed (and quickly deleted) responses, complaints, etc., it's probably better to send a FAX, and best to send a physical letter if you want to get someone's attention. I'm speaking specifically about communication to their sponsors and advertisers. Each physical letter reflects a certain number of readers (hundreds? thousands?)who will never contact them, and the statistics-oriented number crunchers know that.

    It might make the accountants think twice about the site's editorial policies.

    -MadMagyar

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bastards all. The question for now is, what can WE do for YOU????? You have given us immeasurable good over the years - is there something we can do? Do you want contributions to help out? You have my email address so don't let pride or anger or sadness get in the way if you need help. We are all with you!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Perhaps, David, it is a positive note that your relationship with the Examiner is terminated. The headaches and heartaches experienced by you during this time of duress with them must have been difficult and very frustrating to bear. Now that you will no longer be casting your pearls of wisdom before the Examiner swine, I hope that other, similar services, will see the light and consider picking up your columns.. Perhaps your time may now be put to more prosperous efforts with better remuneration. If there is anything that we, your loyal readers, can do to help the process, please don't hesitate to ask. Maintain your positive attitude and outlook, my friend.. Many of your readers will follow you regardless of where you go..
    Peace,
    Skip W..

    ReplyDelete
  21. Examiner.com blows up my browser too easily. I had to stop visiting, and get the info elsewhere. I know it provided your bread and butter, but with its LOUSY ads working into EVERYthing, I can't use it.

    Find another home, or BUILD your own. That place is horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kimberly Morin6/12/2015 8:41 PM

    David I write for Examiner as well and have had issues with them also. They do not seem to understand original reporting AT ALL. And there's never anyone to talk to about it.

    They are probably the worst writing organization in the country but I keep writing only to make my local stories get into the 'news' because the LSM where I live is horrific.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Someone referred me to this page after I commented that I hadn't seen anything from you on my RSS feed for about two weeks. Glad to hear at least that it wasn't a health problem.

    I'll be sending a note to the Examiner telling them they just fired their last reason for me bother coming back to their site. It looks more like the Enquirer every day, what with their "Michelle Obama Examiners" and the like.

    Do you have an RSS feed available on this website? I'm itching to make the transition, but I can't find any obvious facility here.

    ReplyDelete
  24. See "Feed Me!" at bottom of left sidebar.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I object to being required to join a site just to post a comment. I find it irritating to see so many gun rights experts missing the point especially those such as the NRA. If the basic issue were to be settled there would be No NRA or other like groups. The constitution was written to be enforced, not interpreted the tenth amendment re enforces the second amendment. Anything covered in the federal constitution is mandated to be enforced by the individual states. anything not addressed in the federal constitution is left to the states or the people. since the second amendment is covered in the federal constitution the states have no authority to modify the second amendment. There are no valid state gun laws. when the second amendment states shall not be infringed that is a mandate to the states as well. congress has no authority to delegate its authority to an agency to create infringements Like the BATFE. Not one regulation made by the BATFE is valid law because all laws must originate in Congress. No valid right can be taxed, licensed or regulated or it is no longer a right but a mere privilege. The federal government is required to guarantee all of our bill of Rights, all of them and the states have no authority to violate any of those rights. How would the American people respond to 20 states shutting down all news paper producers? Individual states have no authority to interfere with the first amendment therefore they have no authority to interfere with the second amendment. there are no valid state gun laws. We are American citizens and can travel anywhere in this nation and our rights follow us where ever we go. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and until a constitutional amendment is passed to change that No gun law or act passed by congress is valid law. Not the 1934 NFA, not the 1968 or the 1986 gun laws and absolutely no state gun laws or regulations can be valid because anything is an infringement by definition. If you read the laws of this nation carefully even the supreme court has no authority to interpret the constitution, and I can prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Keep on spreading the word David!! All your work is greatly appreciated. Words like yours have never been more true, I take strength in them as Washingtonians like myself continue to violate I-594.

    ReplyDelete
  27. David,

    Love your writing, HATED Examiner website. Damn thing didn't load half the time or stupid pop ups wouldn't allow me to read your articles. Will follow you here.

    TyreByter

    ReplyDelete
  28. David - just became aware of the "operation chokepoint"-like dismissal.. I, like others, HATED the popups and hijacks rampant at the Examiner website.. There has to be a better advertising model, and there are alot of gun, ammo and associated products that would love to advertise once they see the traffic on you get on this site.. I will redouble my visits!.. good luck, and i (we) GREATLY appreciate everybthing you do... I subscribe to Guns Mag and listen to AAR podcasts to hear and read your stuff.. dont go quiet on us!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.