Editorial Discretion Research Articles

Editorial: There Are Promises to Keep and Miles to Go Before I Leave…

Editorial: There Are Promises to Keep and Miles to Go Before I Leave…

Stop the Presses? Moving From Strategic Silence to Strategic Amplification in a Networked Media Ecosystem

In a media ecosystem besieged with misinformation and polarizing rhetoric, what the news media chooses not to cover can be as significant as what they do cover. In this article, we examine the historical production of silence in journalism to better understand the role amplification plays in the editorial and content moderation practices of current news media and social media platforms. Through the lens of strategic silence (i.e., the use of editorial discretion for the public good), we examine two U.S.-based case studies where media coverage produces public harms if not handled strategically: White violence and suicide. We analyze the history of journalistic choices to illustrate how professional and ethical codes for best practices played a key role in producing a more responsible field of journalism. As news media turned to online distribution, much has changed for better and worse. Platform companies now curate news media alongside user generated content; these corporations are largely responsible for content moderation on an enormous scale. The transformation of gatekeepers has led an evolution in disinformation and misinformation, where the creation and distribution of false and hateful content, as well as the mistrust of social institutions, have become significant public issues. Yet it is not just the lack of editorial standards and ethical codes within and across platforms that pose a challenge for stabilizing media ecosystems; the manipulation of search engines and recommendation algorithms also compromises the ability for lay publics to ascertain the veracity of claims to truth. Drawing on the history of strategic silence, we argue for a new editorial approach—“strategic amplification”—which requires both news media organizations and platform companies to develop and employ best practices for ensuring responsibility and accountability when producing news content and the algorithmic systems that help spread it.

FAST: Fast and Accurate Synoptic Texts

Abstract Many classical texts are available in multiple versions that almost always differ from each other due to transcription error and editorial discretion. One of the central challenges in the study of such texts is the preparation of a ‘synoptic’ text: an aligned presentation of the various versions in which corresponding words or phrases, even if not identical, are mapped to each other. Multiple text alignment of this sort must take into account orthographic and conceptual relationships between words. In this article, we define this text alignment problem as an optimization problem by providing a formal measure of alignment quality. Unlike previous measures, our measure uses word embeddings to take into account conceptual similarity between aligned words. We propose an efficient and scalable alignment method in accordance with the proposed criteria. This method splits the texts to be aligned into smaller subtexts, thus improving both efficiency and accuracy. Empirical comparisons on sample data indicate our method is significantly faster than existing methods, often rendering intractable problems tractable, and that the alignment obtained by our method is considerably better than that obtained by other methods.

Platforms and the Fall of the Fourth Estate: Looking Beyond the First Amendment to Protect Watchdog Journalism

Journalists see the First Amendment as an amulet, and with good reason. It has long protected the Fourth Estate—an independent institutional press—in its exercise of editorial discretion to check government power. This protection helped the Fourth Estate flourish in the second half of the twentieth century and ably perform its constitutional watchdog role. But in the last two decades, the media ecology has changed. The Fourth Estate has been subsumed by a Networked Press in which journalists are joined by engineers, algorithms, audience, and other human and non-human actors in creating and distributing news. The Networked Press’s most powerful members are platforms. These platforms—companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter—shun the media label even as they function as information gatekeepers and news editors. Their norms and values, including personalization and speed, stymie watchdog reporting. The Networked Press regime significantly threatens watchdog journalism, speech that is at the core of the press’s constitutional role. Yet, limited by the state action doctrine, the First Amendment cannot shield this speech from a threat by private actors like platforms. Today, the First Amendment is insufficient to protect a free press that can serve as a check on government tyranny. This article argues that we must look beyond the First Amendment to protect watchdog journalism from the corrosive power of platforms. It describes the limits of the First Amendment and precisely how platforms threaten watchdog journalism. It also proposes a menu of extra-constitutional options for bolstering this essential brand of speech.

Watchdog or Demagogue? The Media in the Chinese Legal System

Over the past decade, the Chinese media have emerged as among the most influential actors in the Chinese legal system. As media commercialization and increased editorial discretion have combined with growing attention to social and legal problems, the media have gained incentives to expand their traditional mouthpiece roles in new directions. As a result, the media have emerged as one of the most effective and important avenues of citizen redress. Their role in the legal system, however, has also brought them increasingly into conflict with China’s courts. This Article examines the implications of the media’s roles in the Chinese legal system for China’s legal development. It shows how media commercialization has resulted in incentives for the media to expand the scope of

Freeing the Press from Editorial Discretion and Hegemony in Bona Fide News: Why the Revolution Must Be Televised

Broadcast journalism’s foundational role of informing and engaging the American public in order to further America’s self-governing democracy is in crisis. Corporate broadcast owners’ efforts to maximize profits and increase advertising revenue during traditional network news and related public affairs programming have led to the closing of many investigative and correspondent television news bureaus and have arguably hastened the devolution of broadcast journalism into a depoliticized spectacle filled with political and celebrity, gossipdriven infotainment. 1 Furthermore, as viewers have abdicated their reliance on broadcast journalism as their primary source of political knowledge, they have also disengaged from professional broadcast journalists’ dispassionate, impartial and aspirationally objective method and manner of presentation. 2 This Article contends that these definitional shifts in viewer engagement, which serve as underlying challenges to broadcast journalism’s deliberative role, are the symptoms, rather than the root cause of its deliberative peril. These shifts are instead the net effect of long-standing mainstream societal norms and presumptions that led to the narrowing in scope and definition of civic engagement. Specifically, such mainstream norms presume a disengagement between civic knowledge and participation on the one hand, and the various expressive modes (and whims) of popular culture, entertainment and discourse on the other. This assumption of a necessary disjuncture between reason and emotions, particularly with pleasure, was reflected in traditional news programming formats and personified by professional broadcast journalists during the Golden Age of

Editorial discretion

The gold standard for publication remains the blinded peer review process where authors’ manuscripts are judged in quality and scientific worth by their peers (usually two but often more). The process itself adds weight to the findings of the paper as does the journal in which the paper, has been published. This process is often talked about as a key marker of quality, both of the paper and of the journal, however, it is only part of a larger picture. Often ignored, or indeed perhaps simply less well publicised, is the effect of editorial discretion and bias in the publication process. In truth, the decision to publish is much more complex than it appears. Editors are ultimately responsible for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript. This decision is necessary but not always transparent, taking into account factors other than reviews, such as likelihood of citation, interest, suitability for the readership and what other papers are about to be published in the journal. The Editor also considers quality, both objectively such as use of PRISMA and CONSORT guidelines and often less satisfactorily the Editor’s own standards. We have included an editorial in the …

Examining the dominant, emerging, and waning themes featured in select HRD publications

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to identify how themes and contributions featured in the four scholarly journals sponsored by the largest human resource development (HRD) research association (the Academy of Human Resource Development, AHRD) reflect the changing identity of the HRD field. Design/methodology/approach – A frequency and content analysis of articles published during the period 2002-2011 was conducted to identify the dominant themes and research trend. Further, comments were made on the aims and scope and editorial discretion for each journal to understand how the journals influence the direction of scholarship in HRD. Findings – It was found that the boundaries of the field are constantly expanding with some of the older and mature themes losing momentum and new themes coming to the forefront of scholarly interest. The journals were found to play a critical role in setting the future direction for the field. Research limitations/implications – Future researchers can examine if the waxing and waning themes identified in the findings remain same after analyzing contributions featured in journals that are not sponsored by the AHRD, but publish articles on topics closely related to HRD. Also, the findings can guide further examination of the editors’ leadership role in driving the evolution of the HRD field. Practical implications – Considering the characteristics of HRD as an applied discipline, the findings can guide future researchers to explore if the thematic changes as identified in the study are associated with the needs of HRD practice. Originality/value – The study attempts to understand the landscape of HRD research by looking at how the field’s identity boundaries have shifted over time and how different entities, like authors and editors publishing scholarly articles in the four HRD journals in the past decade, have interacted to contribute to the shift.

Lessons from Content ID: Searching for a Balance between Editorial Discretion and Free Expression on Application Platforms

Intermediaries such as Facebook have become the new “town squares” where self-expression and community interaction thrive – that is, until they remove your post.Although intermediaries have been responsive in providing a forum for users to enjoy, many maintain a meager track record when it comes to collateral censorship. Although some intermediaries such as YouTube have come a long way, anecdotal evidence suggests there is still ample room for improvement in social media platforms’ policies and processes for removing content. Possible approaches, such as democratic governance, ex ante notice and choice, and ex post appeal, pose advantages and drawbacks. However, enhancing transparency is a great place to start. Transparency has potential to deliver a variety of benefits to users as well as intermediaries, and would lay a foundation for the further development of best practices, such as a user appeals process. The challenge remains in incentivizing intermediaries to achieve the best balance possible in our society’s new vital speech forums.

The Perils of Classifying Social Media Platforms as Public Utilities

To the extent public utility-style regulation has been debated within the Internet policy arena over the past decade, the focus has been almost entirely on the physical layer of the Internet. The question has been whether Internet service providers should be considered “essential facilities” or “natural monopolies” and regulated as public utilities. The debate over “net neutrality” regulation has been animated by such concerns.While that debate still rages, the rhetoric of public utilities and essential facilities is increasingly creeping into policy discussions about other layers of the Internet, such as the search layer. More recently, there have been rumblings within academic and public policy circles regarding whether social media platforms, especially social networking sites, might also possess public utility characteristics. Presumably, such a classification would entail greater regulation of those sites’ structures and business practices.Proponents of treating social media platforms as public utilities offer a variety of justifications for regulation. Amorphous “fairness” concerns animate many of these calls, but privacy and reputational concerns are also frequently mentioned as rationales for regulation. Proponents of regulation also sometimes invoke “social utility” or “social commons” arguments in defense of increased government oversight, even though these notions lack clear definition.Social media platforms do not resemble traditional public utilities, however, and there are good reasons why policymakers should avoid a rush to regulate them as such. Treating these nascent digital services as regulated utilities would harm consumer welfare because public utility regulation has traditionally been the archenemy of innovation and competition. Furthermore, treating today’s leading social media providers as digital essential facilities threatens to convert “natural monopoly” or “essential facility” claims into self-fulfilling prophecies. Related proposals to mandate “API neutrality” or enforce a “Separations Principle” on integrated information platforms would be particularly problematic. Such regulation also threatens innovation and investment. Marketplace experimentation in search of sustainable business models should not be made illegal.Remedies less onerous than regulation are available. Transparency and data-portability policies would solve many of the problems that concern critics, and numerous private empowerment solutions exist for those users concerned about their privacy on social media sites.Finally, because social media are fundamentally tied up with the production and dissemination of speech and expression, First Amendment values are at stake, warranting heightened constitutional scrutiny of proposals for regulation. Social media providers should possess the editorial discretion to determine how their platforms are configured and what can appear on them.

Book Reviews

JOHN FLOWER, Accounting and Distributive Justice (New York, NY: Routledge, 2010, ISBN 978-0-415-87177-8, pp. 201)

State of Independence: Explaining and Maintaining the Distinctive Competence of the British Journal of Political Science

Uniquely among leading generalist journals in political science, the BJPolS is independent of any professional association. Although organizational sponsorship confers great advantages, the BJPolS has thrived during its first forty years because able editors exploited their independence to adopt policies that were less feasible for official journals subject to membership pressures – a distinctive focus on contemporary theory, receptivity to overseas contributors, flexibility about longer articles and dual submissions, and active editorial discretion. These practices should continue to serve the journal well despite challenges posed by technological change. In responding to specialized competitors, the BJPolS should maintain its aspiration to publish papers that address ‘problems of general significance to students of politics’ by connecting analytical models to empirical evidence and enduring normative goals.

Celebrations, Clusters, and Comparative Literature

Celebrations, Clusters, and Comparative Literature Dorothy M. Figueira In this issue of The Comparatist, I decided that we might try something different. I have had the occasion, as I grow older and my colleagues grow even older, to participate in various Festschriften offered in their honor. This is a charming custom, where colleagues join together to celebrate the career of one of their own. It is a custom that does not occur often enough in the States. On too many occasions, a scholar’s retirement is feted in the seminar room after hours with some punch and cookies or worse, with a dinner of glorified cafeteria food where administrators make lame jokes. When I first learned that Michael Palencia-Roth had retired after many years at the University of Illinois, I thought it reasonable to use my editorial discretion to collect a number of articles in honor of his work. Prof. Palencia-Roth is an eminent comparatist and a valiant soldier in our field. His work, both scholarly and pedagogically, exemplifies the best of our discipline. The Board of the Southern Comparative Literature Association supported my decision to frame this issue as a Festschrift to him. This year, Palencia-Roth took part in a keynote forum at our annual meeting at Auburn University, announcing this volume. The Board of the scla Press of its journal, the only regional American journal of Comparative Literature with a national, and even international, readership. I appreciate their encouragement as we venture forth with such alternative clusters of articles. Working with this perspective has brought forth unexpected connections: for example, David Damrosch’s article in this issue anticipates next year’s cluster on the relationship between comparative literature and world literature (this future cluster stems from an acla panel I organized devoted to this topic) while simultaneously recalling a cluster presented last year (the icla panel on the state of the discipline, which also took place at the acla). In coming years, we are also planning guest-edited topics and clusters that are comparative in scope culled from the scla annual meeting. Michael Palencia-Roth, the Emeritus Trowbridge Scholar in Literary Studies and Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Illinois, was born and raised in Colombia. He taught at Illinois for thirty years, where he directed the program in Comparative and World Literature for six years (1988–94). He has published books and monographs on Gabriel García Márquez, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, the conquest period in Latin America, the Holocaust, Comparative Literature as a discipline, and comparative civilizational analysis. His approximately 80 [End Page 1] other publications include major encyclopedia articles on Latin American authors, as well as essays on Germanic subjects, English literature, the Spanish colonization of the New World, and theoretical issues in cross-cultural analysis. Palencia-Roth’s role as a teacher, mentor, and administrator bears particular note. He has molded a generation of comparatists, instilling in them a sense of what it means to work together both professionally and collegially. It is, therefore, both his scholarship and his work as a citizen in the profession that the scla honors in these pages. A number of scholars have written articles devoted to topics that Palencia-Roth has touched upon in his work. We begin this issue with an interview with Professor Palencia-Roth in which he discusses his peregrinations within Comparative Literature. He examines the nature of the discipline and the changes he has seen in it since his days at Harvard as a graduate student. He also offers a prognosis for its future, noting the possibilities and pitfalls that might occasion the transformation of Comparative Literature into World Literature. Palencia-Roth’s concerns (and celebration of Comparative Literature’s potential) nicely establish a framework that the essays in his honor will engage, beginning with David Damrosch’s comments on the American institutionalization of World Literature. Damrosch investigates the cultural and institutional impact of American Comparative Literature as both a limiting factor and an arena of possibility. He questions how Americentric American comparatism actually is. On a further note, he questions to what extent world literature is becoming a creature of American conglomerate capitalism and an export trade...

When Practice Oversteps the Limits of Theory: An Assessment of Fair Media Coverage for Political Parties in Great Britain and Mexico

AbstractOver stressing the rights‐safeguarding role of democracy has led to a widespread neglect of democracy's essential function: to ensure the legitimacy of elected rulers and by doing so, to ensure political stability. The effects of this neglect are apparent in the disputes that arise concerning media coverage of elections. This article examines the difficulties democratic statesmen face to justify and consistently implement arrangements that limit the freedom of expression of the media in order to minimize the challenges to the legitimacy of electoral outcomes that a biased coverage of elections could incite. Current democratic theory does not address this problem. Indeed its emphasis on safeguarding the rights of citizens can suggest that the freedom of expression of the media should prevail over considerations of legitimacy and stability. This study examines the justifications adduced, and the implementation of, arrangements that curtail the right to advocacy of broadcasters and limit their right to editorial discretion in order to provide political parties with what I refer to here as “fair media coverage.” In particular, the article highlights and assesses the experiences in fair media coverage of election campaigns in the British General Election of 1997 and the Mexican Federal Election of 2000. In full view of these case studies, and on the basis of the theoretical guidelines I develop at the beginning of this article, I argue for limiting freedom of expression and stress the urgent need for democratic theories to address the practical problems that trouble democratic authorities.

Editor's Notes

Editor's Notes

Reporting of clinical trials in the International Endodontic Journal– the CONSORT guidelines

Reporting of clinical trials in the <i>International Endodontic Journal</i>– the CONSORT guidelines

Antibiotic resistance: can we beat the bugs?

The Discussion Forum provides a medium for airing your views on any issues related to the pharmaceutical industry and obtaining feedback and discussion on these views from others in the field. You can discuss issues that get you hot under the collar, practical problems at the bench, recently published literature, or just something bizarre or humorous that you wish to share. Publication of letters in this section is subject to editorial discretion and company-promotional letters will be rejected immediately. Furthermore, the views provided are those of the authors and are not intended to represent the views of the companies they work for. Moreover, these views do not reflect those of Elsevier, Drug Discovery Today or its editorial team. Please submit all letters to Rebecca Lawrence, News & Features Editor, Drug Discovery Today, e-mail: Rebecca.Lawrence@drugdiscoverytoday.com

Are microwave instruments just expensive hot-plate stirrers?

The Discussion Forum provides a medium for airing your views on any issues related to the pharmaceutical industry and obtaining feedback and discussion on these views from others in the field. You can discuss issues that get you hot under the collar, practical problems at the bench, recently published literature, or just something bizarre or humorous that you wish to share. Publication of letters in this section is subject to editorial discretion and company-promotional letters will be rejected immediately. Furthermore, the views provided are those of the authors and are not intended to represent the views of the companies they work for. Moreover, these views do not reflect those of Elsevier, Drug Discovery Today or its editorial team. Please submit all letters to Dr Rebecca Lawrence, News & Features Editor, Drug Discovery Today, e-mail: Rebecca.Lawrence@drugdiscoverytoday.com

Value your compound management team!

The Discussion Forum provides a medium for airing your views on any issues related to the pharmaceutical industry and obtaining feedback and discussion on these views from others in the field. You can discuss issues that get you hot under the collar, practical problems at the bench, recently published literature, or just something bizarre or humorous that you wish to share. Publication of letters in this section is subject to editorial discretion and company-promotional letters will be rejected immediately. Furthermore, the views provided are those of the authors and are not intended to represent the views of the companies they work for. Moreover, these views do not reflect those of Elsevier, Drug Discovery Today or its editorial team. Please submit all letters to Rebecca Lawrence, News & Features Editor, Drug Discovery Today, e-mail: Rebecca.Lawrence@current-trends.com

Communication networks: key to success of new technologies

The Discussion Forum provides a medium for airing your views on any issues related to the pharmaceutical industry and obtaining feedback and discussion on these views from others in the field. You can discuss issues that get you hot under the collar, practical problems at the bench, recently published literature, or just something bizarre or humorous that you wish to share. Publication of letters in this section is subject to editorial discretion and company-promotional letters will be rejected immediately. Furthermore, the views provided are those of the authors and are not intended to represent the views of the companies they work for. Moreover, these views do not reflect those of Elsevier, Drug Discovery Today or its editorial team. Please submit all letters to Dr Rebecca Lawrence, News & Features Editor, Drug Discovery Today, e-mail: Rebecca.Lawrence@current-trends.com