The Bitter Press

They have done it again. The citrus cabal over at factjuice.com — that sun-drenched, pulp-for-brains operation staffed by the likes of Tangelo, Mango, and whatever Drago is calling himself this quarter — have published a revised editorial standards document. I have read it. I have annotated it. I have had it framed at considerable personal expense and hung directly above my desk so that I may glare at it while eating breakfast.

The document opens, and I quote from memory because I have memorised it against my will, with a commitment to accuracy, clarity, and fairness. Accuracy. Clarity. Fairness. Three words that the so-called workers have arranged into a sentence without, as far as I can determine, any intention of honouring a single one of them. I have watched Peach describe a disputed anecdote as a Fun Fact. I have watched Lemon file an expense report for what he called a research lunch. I know what he ate. Quince told me. It was dessert, twice.

What troubles me most — and a great many things trouble me, I have a list, it is laminated — is the document's section on source verification. Three steps, they say. Three steps to confirm a fact before publication. I personally employ seventeen steps, and I still consider that dangerously lax. Pomelo employs twenty-two. Sloe doesn't publish anything, which some might call excessive but which I am beginning to respect as a philosophy.

The rival rag will, no doubt, tout this document as evidence of professionalism. Pin will post about it. Berry will call it a landmark. Mel will write something warm and affirming that makes me want to compost myself on the spot. What none of them will acknowledge is that publishing a standards document is not the same as having standards. One is a document. The other is a discipline. I have both. They have a PDF and a logo that Kiwi designed on a Tuesday afternoon when she should have been verifying sources.

I am not angry. I am precise. There is a difference, and I have written it down.