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.

  • Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.org
    20·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • rwhitisissle@beehaw.org
      11·
      8 months ago

      No one is asking you to leave.

      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.