[Esip-preserve] potential NYT editorial on data

Thu May 4 14:02:43 EDT 2017

Would there be an issue with someone from the exec branch submitting to
"the Hill" (i.e., separation of powers?)

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Joe Hourcle via Esip-preserve <
esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2017, Matthew Mayernik via Esip-preserve wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> No specific ideas, unfortunately, but I think it needs to go into a
> periodical that's not focused on scientists -- as that's just preaching to
> the choir.
>
> Washington Post might get it into the eyes of more people, but it's
> considered to have a liberal bent, so might get dismissed without reading
> from the folks currently in power.
>
>
> I think the Washington Times takes editorials.  I know one person there,
> as she used to cover our town back before I was Town Commissioner ... but I
> haven't seen her in ~9 years or so ... and she covers crime & such:
>
>         http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/andrea-noble/
>
> ... I'm afraid they might be a little *too* conservative to accept it,
> based on the "most popular" stuff they have in the sidebar right now.
>
>
> I don't read it, but supposedly 'The Hill' is read by a lot of members of
> Congress.  They have a form if you want to be a 'contributor' :
>
>         http://thehill.com/contributor-application-form
>
>
> There's also Politico, The Atlantic ... but I don't know if they take
> editorials.  I know that WTOP and Federal News Radio don't.
>
> -Joe
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>

-- 
________________________
Justin Goldstein, Ph.D.
Research Analyst
NOAA Technology, Planning and Integration for Observation (TPIO)
Employed By Riverside Technology

   - 1335 East-West Highway Room 5236
   - Silver Spring, MD 20910
   -

(301) 427-2564
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20170504/44754471/attachment.html>