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A full week after Examiner.com "unpublished" my Hastert column, and five days after they torpedoed my follow-up column about a media subscriber news service including that story in an alert to members,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]