[Esip-preserve] potential NYT editorial on data

[Matthew Mayernik]

Hi all,
I have not heard from the NYT, so according to their auto-response we can
assume they do not want it. Any suggestions for next steps? EOS is an
obvious possibility, but anybody want to argue for something else?
Matt

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Matthew Mayernik <mayernik at ucar.edu> wrote:

> Thanks all. I did submit the article this afternoon. The submitted doc is
> attached for your reference. I added a basic preliminary title, but the NYT
> op-ed guidance says that NYT will choose the title, so that's not
> important. They sent me an auto-response that said that we should know
> within 3 business days, and that if we don't hear by then, we can assume
> they don't want it and submit elsewhere.
>
> Thanks again for all of your input,
> Best,
> Matt
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Parsons, Mark <parsom3 at rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>> Well done, sir. You demonstrated exemplary inclusivity, leadership, and
>> compelling writing.
>>
>> fingers crossed.
>>
>> -m.
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 19:34, Matthew Mayernik via Esip-preserve <
>> esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> Thanks for all of your input. I've gone through your comments and edits
>> and have a much improved draft. As I mentioned, I think timeliness is more
>> important than the exact wording at this point, so I'd like to call it good
>> enough, and ready to submit. I'll try to get it in today, not soon enough
>> for this weekend, but potentially for next week if they like it.
>>
>> Also, I've had a few side conversations about authorship. I don't know
>> NYT policies on authorship, but if they accept, I will work with them to
>> find some way to indicate the group authorship, either in the by-line or as
>> an added sentence somewhere.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Mayernik <mayernik at ucar.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've put together a potential submission to the New York Times as a
>>> follow-on to our data rescue document. Mark Parsons and Ruth Duerr provided
>>> a very helpful first edit.
>>>
>>> Given that the chances of being accepted are very slim, and largely
>>> hinge on the timeliness of the topic, at this point I'd ask that you focus
>>> any feedback on 1) factual corrections, and/or 2) key calls to action, e.g.
>>> what would we hopefully want people to do as a result of reading the
>>> article. If it is accepted, the NYT would have major input in the final
>>> column, so wordsmithing at this stage isn't necessary. For these reasons, I
>>> made the doc comment-only.
>>>
>>> Please do send any objections, however, to the idea of doing a NYT
>>> editorial in the first place.
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SGJnqaSqOK8UGsTATAicyTH_
>>> W5rmBW6lSSZ8vLvN4iA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esip-preserve mailing list
>> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20170504/a9ce8111/attachment.html>