Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the mea-culpa dept.

Janrinok writes:

Apology To Microsoft

On Friday, we published a story, submitted by sigma, alleging that Microsoft had attempted to blackmail the UK Government in order to prevent the adoption of UK policy supporting open document standards. Having looked more closely at the linked material provided, the word blackmail is not used but appears only in the submission that we received. As the editor of that particular story I am personally responsible for not having checked the sources sufficiently well and for subsequently releasing the story. I wish to apologise, publicly and unreservedly, for any suggestion that Microsoft attempted to blackmail the UK government. They did not, nor does the accusation stand up to any scrutiny. We have edited the title to prevent any further misunderstanding by our community or others and I hope that this action and my apology to Microsoft is sufficient to atone for my mistake.

Apology to sigma

The editor's role includes that of trying to look at each story from both sides to provide a balanced approach. We are not here to support one particular view in preference to another but to provide material that will inspire discussion between members of our community. I published the story that sigma submitted, but attempted to balance it with the alternative view that suggested it was not specifically a Microsoft trait to defend one's business and that it could be argued that they were also attempting to protect their British workforce. However, I did not make it clear where sigma's comments ended and where my editing began, although I did add an Editor's Comment explaining that the story had been edited and that not all comments were those of the submitter. sigma has, quite justifiably, objected to this action and I must, therefore, apologise to him personally. I do apologise to sigma, again publicly and unreservedly, for any changes that I made to the submission that he feels reflect badly upon him.

Our Role

This was most certainly not my best piece of work and, of course, I must also apologise to the community. The editors do, however, have to edit stories; members of the community should not expect their submissions to be a platform for their personal views. Some stories require more editing than others to be suitable for the front page. In this instance, I made a mistake. We will always try to find a balanced approach to any story that needs it, as described in the Editing Process.

As I have already said, I take full responsibility for the stories that I release, including the one arising from sigma's submission. We value each and every submission, even those that do not make it to publication however, we do ask that submitters do not suggest events or actions that are not backed up by the source material, or are not easily verifiable by other means.

janrinok
Editor

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by McD on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:47PM

    by McD (540) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:47PM (#187213)

    I think a neutral POV is a good thing.

    Bias is inevitable, in everything from story selection to what sources we link to - but if the summary verbiage is blatantly partisan in one way or another on any given issue, it tarnishes the credibility of the site and the discussion.

    But as we're seeing in this discussion, people put a great deal of care and effort into crafting their submissions. When you edit that, most especially if you add verbiage or change tones or intention, you risk changing the community's perception of the submitter, who them self is often a community member! People are less likely to submit stories if they think they risk being misrepresented by the editorial process.

    So yeah, let's try to stay neutral in story submissions. If a submission isn't neutral enough, kick it back. Don't put an editor's words into a submitter's mouth - at the very least, identify the speaker whenever possible.

    This story has diverted onto the role of editing, but back on the parent-topic-at-hand - what MS did to the UK - I agree with Sigma. I don't have a problem with calling out the bad behavior of any company.

    Lastly, Sigma writes:

    I'm off to find somewhere that'll welcome an aging leftwing hippy nerd freetard and his Fossie foolishness.

    I hope not. Our tribe ought to feel at home here. :-)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2