A lot of hub bub over a story.

I guess I don’t get it. I’m seeing a lot of text over a story that was passed over from The Washington Post. The Post didn’t want to print a 10,000 word story about a quad amputee that is teaching fashion. Perhaps they simply didn’t want a long story, or they didn’t like the topic, or whatever it might be. Their editorial discretion is their burden. Maybe they didn’t think the readership of the Post would appreciate it to the same degree as articles that filled the niche left open. If you read about it on the Washington CityPaper news blog by Eric Wemple, you get the impression that  there are a lot of issues, and perhaps personal judgement calls, but as an editor, writer, reader, and so on… that is pretty much all you have. Judgement calls. Wemple goes into a lot of that himself. The ethics of the decision are pretty straight forward, the various parties that have been named agree that there was no undue stress put on the editor to cut the story, but it seems that people on the outside want to make this a big guy versus the little guy story. No one was slamming anyone, perhaps Brauchli simply thinks the story could have been reduced… a lot. A story like this could be good for Rolling Stone, not the Post. But throughout my commentary here, the only thing I could say repeatedly is “Perhaps.”