Don't Ask Don't Tell Article

[BarryDavidson]

Ed,

The article I submitted on the constitutionality of Don't Ask Don't Tell was rejected within a couple of minutes of being posted. The reason was, "We do not generally consider opinion-based or editorial-style content."

The article in question was based off the constitution and Supreme Court precedents. My opinion of the matter is different that the facts set forth. I understand that in the politically correct world of today that certain subjects are more sensitive than others, but my opinion has nothing to do with the article. As for it being editorial-style, it was not written to elicit any specific emotion like modern editorials are. In other words, It was not written to be for or against any group or agenda. I merely provided the constitutional basis of military members not having the same rights as civilians by the constitution, and Supreme Court cases which reinforces those statements.

I'm not going to complain about the rejection. It's your call, but I was wondering why.

[BarryDavidson]

I guess I'll have to let this drop, although I have to say that I'm disappointed in no answer. Anything else I say at this point will probably jeopardize my future on CC.

[Celeste Stewart]

Barry,
In case you haven't noticed, the editorial team hasn't been overly active in the forum lately. Not sure why, but it's been awfully quiet lately. So, it's likely that your question hasn't been seen yet.

[BarryDavidson]

Barry,
In case you haven't noticed, the editorial team hasn't been overly active in the forum lately. Not sure why, but it's been awfully quiet lately. So, it's likely that your question hasn't been seen yet.

Thanks Celeste, and I hadn't noticed. Given all the political correctness being crammed down people's throats just about everywhere, I was a little on the miffed side and jumping to conclusions. My article started with a question, and I then researched until I found an answer. Had the evidence pointed in the other direction, the article would have reflected that. I don't know why the decision bothered me so much. It could be partly because it was rejected so quickly, but mostly because it was called an opinion. Granted, I'd say that over 90% of writing is based on opinion. One needs only look over the headlines every day to see that. Mostly though, I'm saddened. This is the one place I turn to with my sell-able writing.


P.S. We have a whole editorial team now?

[Celeste Stewart]

Yes, they hired some extra reviewers. I'll find the thread for you:

http://www.constant-content.com/forum/v ... 134#p57134

[Elizabeth Ann West]

I wouldn't give up on the piece yet, Barry. Maybe there were a few places where the tone came off preachy. I get that you don't necessarily agree with the answer in the article, but even if the evidence points in the opposite direction of what you think, it could still have tone issues.

For example, abortion is a tricky topic. Writing about the constitutionality of ANYTHING is almost 100% opinion. In fact, that's what the Supreme Court gives, opinions, rarely more than a majority feeling one way over the other. If I had to write on abortion for example, I would stick to pieces that talk about age limits across the country, or link current state law with pending federal legislation. Very cut and dry, staying away from the emotional side.

However, one way to take the opinion out would be to focus more on facts themselves for the topic:

How Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Will Affect Military Benefits

Can Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Open the Door for Federally Sanctioned Gay Marriage?

It is a very fine line, regardless. There are other outlets where editorial pieces are taken, like Hubpages, Associated Content. I would also say there is has been a marked shift in C-C's focus towards more commercially viable articles (can't complain, they need to make money too). So you may see editorial type stuff on here from days of yore. But ask yourself this, what kind of website would purchase your article? Is it the type of website where the owner would likely write this material himself? What kind of product or service could be tied to it? I'm not trying to say all of our writing needs to be commercially based.

I'm working on a piece right now about fighting colds and sickness when you're a stay-at-home-Mom (things you forget about, like washing your hands after diaper changes but daycare centers are required to do). Even though the piece sounds like a public service announcement, it could be used on a parenting site, a site that sells hand sanitizer or vitamins, a site that offers health insurance/advice, etc. Your piece is probably very well-written and interesting, it just might not fit the market C-C is trying to target.

[BarryDavidson]

Thanks Celeste and Elizabeth...

I understand where you're coming from Elizabeth. I wrote the piece based on Article I Section 8, and Article II Section 2. From there is was about the precedents set forth by the Court. I've been looking for other venues to sell the piece, and yet this is the one place I like best.

As for who I think would buy it, probably a news source looking for a balanced article which doesn't preach - maybe even a constitutionalist website which doesn't want an article that prattles on about religious topics when that's not the issue. It's hard to find writing which doesn't go to the far side of the spectrum when dealing with issues such as this. Unless you travel/read in academic circles, and those writings are usually ignored by the more politically correct media.

[MelissaNott]

Tomorrow (Friday) is Constitution Day! Just thought I'd throw that in.

[BarryDavidson]

Celeste,

Thanks for the link above. It made me happy to know that it probably wasn't Ed who dismissed my article out of hand about two minutes after I'd posted it, probably without even reading it. I'm still a little sad that all I got was, "We do not generally consider opinion-based or editorial-style content." Even though the sentence is an oxy-moron, it seems that others are getting more in their more frequent rejections.

[Celeste Stewart]

You're welcome.

[Elizabeth Ann West]

Not to be a cynic, but I think you're being overly optimistic about those news sites Everything has to outrage it seems for anyone to read it. Take the recent weather for example. Two major hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean, not threatening land anywhere, but it gets big bulletins and breaking news status on Yahoo! and other major sites? Is the nation a bunch of weather geeks that I'm not aware of?

As far as constitutionalist sites/blogs, most of those are on one side of the fence or the other. They either believe in a strict interpretation, or one where the Framers intended judges to extrapolate. Let's not forget, segregation was largely ended from a court case dealing with its threat to interstate commerce (I'm not complaining that segregation is ended, just you wouldn't think THAT would be the constitutional citation). Either way, I wouldn't see them buying content from C-C at our prices. Academia generally doesn't pay well, which is why the news sites resort to shock and awe to keep up ad revenues.

I do empathize about having a "baby" with no home. I have a couple of pieces that started off as ramblings/musings and I am very proud of them. Unfortunately, I don't have a weekly column or an audience willing to lend me authority on a subject matter. If I did, man do I have some things to say about our current society's attitudes towards women being superwomen. The message is do it all: work, clean, take care of the kids, stay hot for your husband. And when we can't live up to that insane idea, it feels like there is something wrong with us. If men were by and large required to juggle everything, they'd all have the bouts of depression and chronic fatigue syndromes. I could find facts and figures to back up my life experience, but at the nuts and bolts of it, it is my opinion.

Again, I feel for you. Hope it finds a home soon.