Please check the mod logs. I submitted a story to the US News group linking to an official statement by the Ohio House of Representatives on their decision to not respect a recent election result enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution. I linked to their actual statement at the Ohio government web site. That is a canonical source. And it was removed for not being actual news because it didn’t link to a news publisher.
This is an insane result. One no actual news organization would ever choose to do. They link to canonical sources.
I am objecting to this in the support group because I don’t know where else to go. The issue here is not about my submission, it is about journalistic standards. This is not acceptable.
EDIT Because there remains a dispute witj admins on what constitutes proper sourcing of documents published by a state government legislative body…
Please contact the main administrative offices of Poynter, The Columbia School of Journalism, or The Neiman School at Harvard and say that you run an online news forum, explain the particulars of this issue, and ask if a professor of journalism or other professional in referral is willing to give an informed opinion on proper practices of sourcing in this situation. Please get an external reality check by a professional in the field. Not for this submission, as that’s water past the bridge, but to craft a reasonable policy going forward for future submissions.
I believe if you’re concise and respectful and do not debate the individual, you’ll have no trouble getting an informed opinion.
Just my $.02 - while newsworthy, a political statement by a political party is politics and not reported news. I get that it’s frustrating, but I also kinda prefer having the ability to sift between “purely political” and “reporting with known bias” in my feed.
Removing an official government statement as the admin of a news group is actual censorship. Don’t kid yourself.
It’s an official party statement, which means that it’s purely to rile people up either to garner support in the form of public displays or donations. It falls outside of the posting guidelines for !usnews, which I happen to like.
That is the party in power. They hold a majority in both houses and the governorship.
This is an insane decision. On the grounds of preventing bias it is biased. It deprives the audience agency to understand by a canonical source.
You are in fact arguing for editorializing the words of an official public document in the name of unbiased news. That is the very definition of editorial bias. That is, bias in the name of removing bias.
That source stands on its own. Especially given this is link aggregation site.
EDIT Here’s the modlog. Note the Mod/Admin statement, ‘what the GOP says isn’t news’ (paraphrasing) and compare that to the fact that the link went to the official Ohio State House of Representatives website. Not the Ohio Republican Party website. That is not a statement by the GOP, it is an official statement by elected officials acting under state authority. That makes it NEWS, not opinion.
https://ohiohouse.gov/news/republican/deceptive-ohio-issue-1-misled-the-public-but-doesnt-repeal-our-laws-117412
I’m concerned that my affect over text is coming across as combative or dismissive and that’s really not the case - their stance is deplorable on any level of humanity and rallying support against them is of paramount importance.
If it were the AP, or Reuters, or a local Ohio news agency (or other news group) reporting blurb that linked to the party statement, it would fit the posting guidelines by being a news report.
Every community has rules about what content is on topic, and if you post something else it will be removed. That’s not censorship.
A government statement is a government statement. It is not news. A proper news organisation would, for example, fact check whatever statement the government made and consider if the reader should be given additional context - perhaps details the government might be omitting in order to increase their chances of being re-elected.
On an issue as politically charged as this one, it’s especially important for the full journalistic process to be followed. You’re essentially attempting to post to the community as if you are a journalist yourself. But you’re not… and even if you were there’s no team of people fact checking what you wrote.
There are communities where you can do that, but US News one one of those communities.
Look, I will not change your mind. But I also will not agree with you. And if a policy like this persists, I will not participate.
I don’t want you not participating, even if we disagree on this. What’s wrong with linking the direct source in !politics and finding reporting on it to post to !news?
No worries. You got it.
I will be happy to leave BeeHaw if admins wish it. Just ask. Or ban me as you wish. It’s your site.
Take a deep breath. No one is asking you to leave. We are trying to educate you about the community guidelines set for U.S. News.
At this point, I am wondering if maybe someone should be asking them to leave. I’ve interacted with this poster in other threads. I think they might be psychologically unwell and I also think that their primary purpose for interacting with Beehaw and, honestly, any other Lemmy instance is based around finding ways to antagonize site administration/moderation and complain about their (routinely off topic and incredibly opinionated) content being removed.
Actually, now that I think about it, a ban is probably exactly what they’re fishing for.
Sorry, I meant I want you participating. Just, post the purely political stuff to the politics community and the reporting on stuff to the news ones, that’s all.
So, what was the problem with posting it to !politics@beehaw.org?
It’s your site too if you stay - even if not technically true. I’d hate to see dissenting voices leaving or afraid to speak up. I understand the moderation argument, but I also know that having your contribution removed will feel like being silenced because that’s what happened. There was a reason, but there’s always a reason and the blow won’t soften unless you agree with the reasoning.
You wanted to get the world out and couldn’t. I believe people are listening here, on beehaw in general. You felt you were censored. I can’t really deny that, but I’d suggest to still give the place a chance and see if a pattern emerges. Maybe don’t visit for a while, it really worked for me getting away for several weeks.
I’m actually much more concerned that those running the community do not understand sourcing standards in news. So I worry not about this submission per se, but about future decisions as the audience grows.
The same thing happened at reddit. People who’ve never worked in a newsroom or done any J school run a news aggregation site with millions of subscribers. And the consequence of that is the audience there is poorly served.
The Mod/Admin here removed the submission on the grounds it was political statement by a political party, when in fact it was posted on the Ohio State House of Representatives website under color of official duty by elected officials. That’s a big difference.
That mods/admins here do not understand this distinction and instead focus on the content of the message itself doesn’t bode well for accurate news coverage in that community.
This is a serious issue. It is not personal.
No, it’s literally not. It’s literally just a statement by them, it’s not policy, it’s not an action, it’s literally a press release.
If you think that them being legislators makes it automatically carry some kind of legal weight, you are mistaken.