How do you reject an article?

11 August, 2010 - 11:27 by Ed in Dorset
Oh dear! I've had an article submitted that is guaranteed to cause ill feeling in the village where our magazine is circulated. I don't want to alienate the author, but on the other hand, I don't want her to think she can write on any subject she chooses and alienate my readers! How do you cope with this without upsetting (in this case) a Mrs Hyacinth Bucket character (yes, she's just like the TV programme) with a HUGE ego
‹ A5 pages are SO hard to make interesting layout ›
Submitted by Stuart on 14 August, 2010 - 10:56.
Yes it's a difficult one. I believe that the best thing you can do is to tell her the truth in love. Explain why it wouldn't be such a good idea to print her article and how it would hurt the village. If there is any part of it that would not cause offense then print that. Something I did in the past was to say that there wasn't any room in the newsletter this month and say Sorry. Don't think that would be such a good idea with this lady.
Submitted by Ed in Dorset on 16 August, 2010 - 09:57.
Tried to do this sensitively by editing her article (removing the offending paragraph and expanding the good bits) and sending it back to her for approval. She's taken umbrage and accused me of exercising personal censorship and demeaning her in an "unchristian way". My daily bible notes are about Jeremiah . . . he had a bit of opposition when he tried to do his job, too.
Submitted by pjn on 18 August, 2010 - 07:31.
There are a number of considerations here. First, what will be the impact on church life of having this person offended compared to potentially offending several people in the congregation? Here, I add a cautionary note - in our society today, we have too many people who are willing to take offence on behalf of others. I have found on several occasions, that the 'others' are not in the slightest bit offended. Second, who would be seen as causing the offence if the article was published in its full form over her name? You as editor, or her as author? If people really are offended, you simply invite people to discuss it with the author. You could even get a discussion going through your newsletter, which would fill several pages in the next few editions! Ulitmately, through, it does come down to one thing - you are the editor, and "the editor's decision is final". Before using this option, you should take advice from others who you can trust and whose judgement you trust. I would hope that would include the minister and some of the other church leaders. There is another final option - "if you are not happy with now I do it, I am quite happy to step aside to let you take over." That will almost certainly stop the criticism to your face, although the gossip machine may take over.
Submitted by Mrs Editor on 29 October, 2010 - 12:22.
On the very rare occasion that this happens, I always put a note at the top of the page to the effect that this article has had minimal editing...... I have had no come'back so far .....
Submitted by Mr B on 2 November, 2010 - 10:34.
Yes, I have resorted to this way of dealing with potentially contentious material. I have found that most contributors are very aware that articles may offend and usually 'leave it with me to make decision' ['the editor's word on this is final!].
Submitted by Ron Fletcher on 15 November, 2010 - 13:20.
I was asked in 2005 to include a letter quoting a letter to the Telegraph complaining of the "vacuousness of today's ever changing liturgy" as his excuse for his now intermittent attendance at worship. This came from a member of our one "BCP church". I thought long and hard but printed it, followed directly with a comment from me in which I pointed out the precise timetable of BCP from 1549: "This is the Cranmer who forced the Church of England to have two new Prayer Books in three years! 1549 replaced English with Latin and reflected the reformed theology coming out of Europe; 1552 imposed a much more rigorously reformed theology. Yet another, more Calvinistic, revision of the Prayer Book was in preparation — the altar - sorry, Holy Table - set length-ways in the chancel, surrounded by chairs for the partakers of the Lord’s Supper!!!—but this was pre-empted by his burning by the new Queen, Mary. This is the Cranmer who removed the millennium-old practice of The Peace. This is the Cranmer who stifled such protests as Mr. ******'s, against an ever-changing liturgy, by burning the protesters at the stake. This is the Cranmer, so enmeshed in the politics of his day that he used the power of the State to enforce a wave of iconoclasm that puts Cromwell’s to shame: rood screens burned; wall paintings over-painted; images and statues defaced or smashed. The popularity of what Cranmer tried to root out can be judged from the fact that as late as 1567 - almost ten years after the accession of Elizabeth (Cranmer d.1556) - 9 parishioners of Aysgarth had to make public penance, in that they had “ conceyled and kepte hyd certaine Idoles and Images undefaced . . .” This is the Cranmer to whom English was almost a foreign language, much of whose so-called English was out of date (e.g. “prevent”; “property”) by the time it was in print. It was Cranmer who required a liturgy that was “understanded of the people”, yet people 456 years-on want to preserve its use, although very few people understand its language in any meaningful way. The theology of the Church of England is to be found in its liturgy. Islam does not have formal worship books: worship is a framework, usually extemporised, in which to hear the Blessed Quran declaimed and make formalised prayer; its religious text is heard and read in Classical Arabic - unspoiled by translation. Does Mr. ****** want to hear our Holy Scriptures read in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Does he really want to worship without a Prayer Book? This is the logic of his argument." I never heard another word - save for some very warm congratulations from a large number of worshippers, including some from the church in question!