To Be or Not to Be

I've been writing about Ukraine and Crimea.  The climate is changing rapidly.  At times, I feel I'm drowning in a sea of confusion.  And I hope the article reflects that confusion as well as clarity of thought.

Jeremy's assignment:  Where should comments be edited, removed, or prohibited on news sites? is addressed as a backdrop for the final article.

I'm going to provide concrete examples as I've employed all of the above and give my reasons.

PROHIBITING

I was interviewing a Russian immigrant who shall remain unnamed.  She said,

“There are problems with people who are holding Ukrainian passports in Minnesota.  As Ukrainian citizens, they can’t go back at this time to Crimea with Ukrainian passports as Crimea is now part of Russia."

I decided this should be barred from publication at this time in my article and I self-censored.  I have eliminated significant information, so the identity of the source shall not be revealed.  
 
I could not define or document through secondary sources what had been conveyed by my first source regarding Minnesota Crimean visitors returning to Crimea.  Please know, I first went to the Consulate Office, Russian Federation, in DC.  A woman answered and said, NO COMMENT loudly, when I discussed Crimeans wishing to return home on their Ukrainian passports.  Then she gave me another number to call.  I called a second number in DC and another said, "I didn't know that.  Call this number."  It was the Russian Federation Consulate in Seattle---no one answered the phone at this third Russian consulate. I left a message.  No one called me back.   I called the Ukrainian Consulate in Chicago and I was told all Crimeans could return to Crimea who were visiting Minnesota with a Ukrainian passport. Okay, all of that was clear as mud [which harkens back to Filipov's article; all jokes aside] as Crimea is now under the governmental control of the Russian Federation by popular vote.

EDITING
  
I agreed to edit someone's contribution because they had 'buyers' remorse.  They were afraid they might bring harm to someone and I wanted to honor their concern and felt it would not alter things radically with the article. 

Most editing, for me, comes with fact checking and responding to editorial requests.  I am known for taking 100% of all edits for every article, with rare exception.  

CUTTING 

I cut a quote by a source at the sources request.  I was within my rights to publish.  I stated I was writing a freelance article and comments were on the record.  I sent the quotes on for review as the anti-Semitic leaflets were distributed in Donetsk AFTER I had interviewed and suspected he would want to update his comments; he just asked to be excluded from the article. I honored the request. The irony; during interview he simply stated what was going to happen four days before it happened today.  Hmmmmm.  I have considerable material now.  I decided to include a couple of other sources.  It was last minute for me.

 I realize I have discussed self-regulation-not the regulation of others.  I realize judgement must be exercised.  I mentioned in Angus's post, I don't support snuff films, child pornography, yelling fire in a crowded theater, plagiarism, fraud, etc.  I suspect my standards are low; don't mind including verbatim swearing if someone swore, etc.  I suspect not much should be censored with the exception of deceptive or false information, issues noted here.    

 I think it was the Supreme Court Justice White who said in exasperation, I know pornography when I see it...  in efforts to define exactly what pornography is, floundering in my opinion.  Gave me a chuckle.


I want to thank my team for helping so much with review:  Clair, Joshua, and Don, big hugs.  Diane