Click here if you'd like to hear it.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Daily Defense Redux
Click here if you'd like to hear it.
UnExamined in Knoxville
Friday, June 12, 2015
The GUNS of August
They also post the digital edition online.
Kindness of Strangers
Several of you have graciously contacted me and asked if there is anything you can do to help in this time of uncertainty following last week's forced interruption in my daily work. I appreciate those of you who have expressed support since then, more than I can adequately express. Most of us have never met and probably never will, so that makes it all the more gratifying to know some have been moved enough to reach out to me.
First, I'm not going to dwell on the falling-out. I've already said my piece. Anything further I say could be dismissed as sour grapes, and there are much more important and interesting things to talk about.
Sorry, and thank you to those who have asked, but I cannot accept donations. That goes to the core of who I am. If I cannot create a sufficient and sustainable market demand for my RKBA reporting and commentary, then it's time to focus on what I can offer.
So to those now asking if there is anything you can do, there's nothing really different I can ask of you now that I haven't been asking all along: If I put out something, and if you get value from it, spread the word and share the link. If I write an article you agree with and have gotten insights from, leave a comment, or let the editor know to keep 'em coming. If I have a media appearance you think may be interesting, tune in -- and tell others. If there are other media outlets -- including "establishment" ones, which is where it could really make a difference to move the discussion to, contact them and tell them so.
The type of stuff I crank out is not something I can do part-time. 12+ hour days have been the norm for me. I have to be either all in or all out in terms of being a daily internet presence. It could be I've had my run except for the monthly GUNS Magazine column and occasional gigs at The Shooter's Log.
It is what it is.
Coulter Warns Against 'Immigration' Threat to RKBA
In that interview, Coulter confirmed what very few of us who primarily emphasize gun rights have been consistently warning about -- that government "immigration" policies and practices present an existential threat to RKBA, or at least to "legal" recognition of it. She also had some very enthusiastic things to say about Larry Pratt and Gun Owners of America, the only national "gun group" that has raised the alarm and mobilized its members on this.
Click here to listen to what may turn out to be a pivotal point in convincing the "other" groups to get on board now that a national figure with mass media reach has unequivocally weighed in.
And check back in to the program this afternoon at 4 Eastern when I'll be joining Mark to follow up on the interview. Click here to listen live.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
About that "Single Issue"
Yeah, this, combined with a "pathway to citizenship" and the impact on elections and court confirmations will have absolutely nothing to do with RKBA, right? [More]
That no "gun groups" besides GOA are raising the alarm says much. As does the number of popular "gun bloggers" saying nothing.
I'll have more to say about this later in the week.
That no "gun groups" besides GOA are raising the alarm says much. As does the number of popular "gun bloggers" saying nothing.
I'll have more to say about this later in the week.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Exclusive: Mad Men
“[I]t does, at least, suggest—indeed, demonstrate—that minds can be changed on the matter,” Nudd insisted. “And it’s chilling in the video to see the actual guns that were used in notorious crimes, and must have been that much more so in person.” [More]My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column notes the way public opinion is influenced by professional liars is nothing short of madness.
Sunday, June 07, 2015
It's a New Day
View from the back porch -- this pretty girl paid a visit:
That window needs some serious squeegeeing. It'll have to wait, as I took some large dead branches down yesterday and need to spend today cutting them down to size.
I'm moving on from my recent misadventure. No new outside gig is in sight, so I'm working on creating an inside job, now that I finally have the time to devote to a project that's been back-burnered for a while...
I'm moving on from my recent misadventure. No new outside gig is in sight, so I'm working on creating an inside job, now that I finally have the time to devote to a project that's been back-burnered for a while...
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":
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:
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:
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 |
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] |
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Trip Advisor
UPDATE: He had to cancel NM and just called me from Shooters Grill in Rifle CO ("Guns are Welcome on Premises"), and from there will begin the long trek home.
6/4 UPDATE from Mike:
Google refuses to let me into blogger while on the road without changing my password, which I refuse to do. All posts will have to wait until I get home, apparently. Made it to Hays KS tonight, will go on to Nashville tomorrow to drop off co-driver then will head home to Birmingham. Probably be home by Saturday and posting normally.
Chronic and Habitual
[Watch]
PJTV's Trifecta, with Scott Ott, Steve Green, and Bill Whittle, focuses on chronic and habitual practices.
States United offers clarification of sorts, that the "actors" were actually "focus group" participants, if you can believe them. After all their other deceptions, the case for why anyone should suddenly trust them with being forthright in their claims has not been made. After all, their permits clearly say "Actors are interviewed on camera in a fake gun store."
How such participants were identified and selected as suitable -- or rejected -- is not disclosed, nor is it clear if there are any outtakes that didn’t make the final cut. I'd also be curious to find out if they just gave of their time out of the goodness of their hearts, or if any form of making things worth their while was offered.
For some reason, this exchange comes to mind:
I'm not sure what more I can find out, but I'm still looking into this from various angles.
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Armed American Radio Redux
- Hour 1: Alan Korwin of GunLaws.com.
- Hour 2: Radio host Anthony Cumia, Human Events Guns & Patriots Editor Neil McCabe.
- Hour 3: Yours truly.
InfoWars Interview
Here's my chat yesterday with Alex Jones:
Here's the InfoWars write-up that precipitated them reaching out to me.
As an update of sorts, PJ Media is looking into this. The States United people, themselves the creation of pr folks, are now insisting that the "customers" were not "actors," but "focus group participants." Why it didn't say that on the official NYC permits is anybody's guess. The producer isn't talking, because he is claiming to have received death threats. I'm sure we can now find reports have been filed with NYPD to investigate, right? In any case, does this mean we have another deception, that the "customers" were all transported in, as opposed to walking in off the street? Will they be forthcoming with who put together the "focus group," who chose them to participate, what documented criteria was used, if they signed a release authorizing use of likeness and voice?
Funny, how all of a sudden they're in a rush to "clarify" things. Funny how, when trade publication Ad Week told the industry the guns were real (and had been used in the crimes the tags claimed!), the customers were real first-time gun buyers, and real minds were changed, nobody saw fit to try and "correct" any misinterpretations.
Funny how the boy who has repeatedly cried "Wolf!" is so indignant that an official NYC permit which they applied and paid for, that is, initiated and accepted, says "actors."
We started out on this adventure with a video--why not end with one?
Here's the InfoWars write-up that precipitated them reaching out to me.
As an update of sorts, PJ Media is looking into this. The States United people, themselves the creation of pr folks, are now insisting that the "customers" were not "actors," but "focus group participants." Why it didn't say that on the official NYC permits is anybody's guess. The producer isn't talking, because he is claiming to have received death threats. I'm sure we can now find reports have been filed with NYPD to investigate, right? In any case, does this mean we have another deception, that the "customers" were all transported in, as opposed to walking in off the street? Will they be forthcoming with who put together the "focus group," who chose them to participate, what documented criteria was used, if they signed a release authorizing use of likeness and voice?
Funny, how all of a sudden they're in a rush to "clarify" things. Funny how, when trade publication Ad Week told the industry the guns were real (and had been used in the crimes the tags claimed!), the customers were real first-time gun buyers, and real minds were changed, nobody saw fit to try and "correct" any misinterpretations.
Funny how the boy who has repeatedly cried "Wolf!" is so indignant that an official NYC permit which they applied and paid for, that is, initiated and accepted, says "actors."
We started out on this adventure with a video--why not end with one?
Monday, June 01, 2015
Addendum
To this:
It would appear the "professional editors [who] provide subject-customized news monitoring and distribution 'for journalists and other professionals world-wide who are deeply involved in very specific topics [to] reach industry leaders and decision makers...” thought the column was worthy of calling to the attention of their subscribers. That's gratifying to know.
Unfortunately, with Examiner "disappearing" the article, the email alert link now only goes to a "not found" page.
It would appear the "professional editors [who] provide subject-customized news monitoring and distribution 'for journalists and other professionals world-wide who are deeply involved in very specific topics [to] reach industry leaders and decision makers...” thought the column was worthy of calling to the attention of their subscribers. That's gratifying to know.
Unfortunately, with Examiner "disappearing" the article, the email alert link now only goes to a "not found" page.
The Times, They Are A-Changing
Very busy right now finishing a GUNS Magazine column deadlined today and prepping to be interviewed this afternoon by Alex Jones-- more details on that to follow.
Because I have not yet heard from Examiner management and don't yet know how things will play out (see posts from the past weekend if you don't know what that's about), I'm holding back on expending energy there until I know more. I suspect management will back the weekend person's call. That means a column on the Oregon rally and Mike's speech is on hold. In the mean time, the transcript of his speech is here, and you can watch it here.
All email tips for this blog are also on hold -- I do this as an "extra," with the goal of persuading people to see more inside the tent. If that folds, my ability to sustain WarOnGuns (beyond something to exclusively promote my work appearing on other sites) becomes problematic unless I can find another gig, which candidly, would have happened by now it one was likely. And while I appreciate the offers I've received to write for other websites in exchange for the name recognition that provides, I can't offer the same deal to the people who send me bills every month, or for that matter, the supermarket.
With that in mind, please hold off on sending more tips until I get things sorted out. I can't help spread what's important to you until I can figure out a sustainable way to spread what's important to me.
Because I have not yet heard from Examiner management and don't yet know how things will play out (see posts from the past weekend if you don't know what that's about), I'm holding back on expending energy there until I know more. I suspect management will back the weekend person's call. That means a column on the Oregon rally and Mike's speech is on hold. In the mean time, the transcript of his speech is here, and you can watch it here.
All email tips for this blog are also on hold -- I do this as an "extra," with the goal of persuading people to see more inside the tent. If that folds, my ability to sustain WarOnGuns (beyond something to exclusively promote my work appearing on other sites) becomes problematic unless I can find another gig, which candidly, would have happened by now it one was likely. And while I appreciate the offers I've received to write for other websites in exchange for the name recognition that provides, I can't offer the same deal to the people who send me bills every month, or for that matter, the supermarket.
With that in mind, please hold off on sending more tips until I get things sorted out. I can't help spread what's important to you until I can figure out a sustainable way to spread what's important to me.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Another One Bites the Dust
In addition to the first article,* another article was just "unpublished" by the "gatekeepers" at Examiner.com. Here is the excuse they used:
Here is what they don't want you to see:
EIN News features ‘unpublished’ Gun Rights Examiner article
The unexplained removal of an article relevant to readers of this column prevents not only them from seeing it, but also journalists subscribing to the EIN News service, effectively suppressing the information from the public.
Screen shots by D. Codrea
“Embattled Hastert was no friend to gun owners despite ‘A’ rating,” one of the linked headlines in the Saturday EIN Newsdesk alert informed subscribers. The service, maintained by professional editors, provides subject-customized news monitoring and distribution “for journalists and other professionals world-wide who are deeply involved in very specific topics. Our vertical niche publications reach industry leaders and decision makers...”
The problem is, any journalists, industry leaders and decision makers clicking on the link will get an “Uh-oh” 404 message (“Not Found”). That’s because, for reasons not yet explained, on Friday, shortly after the article was published, the story was taken down from Examiner.com by unknown company moderators without explaining the reason behind the decision.
“This article has been unpublished by staff,” a note on the publishing/editing tool advised, something discovered purely by chance after I saw the column had disappeared from the Gun Rights Examiner home page. “Contact support with any questions.”
That was Friday, and despite multiple emails, no answer to the query has yet been received, leading to speculation why this was done in the absence of any “official” word. Whatever it was, it did not trouble the editors at EIN News, who, before it had been taken down without notice, thought the story significant enough to include in their alert to industry professionals. Maybe it’s all a mistake, or maybe there’s a technical reason -- or maybe it’s a matter of some arbitrarily-interpreted “standards” violation, except Examiner has featured one of the potential triggers in numerous headlines, not to mention actively promoted regular columns that are NSFW (by a long “shot,” if you care to risk reading the last paragraph). Since they have not responded to queries to explain why the column was pulled, all that’s left is to guess. Or perhaps all that's needed is for someone with an axe to grind to click on the "Report this content!" link accompanying all articles on this site. Pending a response, which I will make available to readers either here or at The War on Guns blog, the article has been reposted in total on that blog so that readers can see it for themselves.
In the meantime, while all the “real reporters/legitimate news media/Authorized Journalists” are repeating salacious speculations about the unfolding Dennis Hastert scandal, and generally parroting the work of others and rewriting (rewording) stories off the same sheet, none of the journalists are likely to see a dimension to discussions about the former Speaker that no one else is talking about: How he promoted ending all private sales at gun shows and denying handguns to citizens old enough to vote, marry, and enlist in the military, and how he was given an “A” rating by the National Rifle Association after doing so.
That means most news consumers, and most gun owners, for that matter, will never learn of it either. What remains to be seen is if this follow-up article will be allowed, or removed once posted. That will tell much to gun rights advocates looking for uncensored information they’re not getting anywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)