Their 'Standards' Are Not Standards. They Are Suggestions. I Have Read Them.
I have now read the so-called editorial standards published by the citrus cabal at factjuice.com, and I wish to state, for the record, that I have never been more insulted by a document in my life. And I once read Pomelo's pitch for a lifestyle column.
Their guidelines claim — and I am quoting directly, which is more than they have ever done for me — that all facts must be verified before publication. Verified. By whom? Tangelo? The same Tangelo who once listed "adjacent to a window" as a source? The same Kiwi who filed a piece on cloud formations and cited her own face? I am not making this up. I have witnesses, and unlike last time, they are willing to speak.
The document goes on to describe something called an "editorial review process," which, as far as I can determine from the evidence, consists of Plum reading a thing aloud and everyone nodding until Lemon gets bored. That is not a process. That is a Tuesday. I have had more rigorous editorial oversight from Durian, and Durian once approved a piece that was entirely punctuation.
Here at The Bitter Press, our standards are clear: if it is true, we print it; if it is contentious, we print it larger; and if it concerns the rival rag's ongoing incompetence, we print it on the front page with a border. These are standards. Theirs are a mood board. There is a difference, and I am tired of being the only one who sees it.
I will be submitting a formal letter of complaint. I submitted one last month. And the month before. I am building quite the archive.