[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Seems when an ‘editor’ rejects more of the intentionally placed ‘self-serving’ stories, the more likely he is to accept the real crap they wanted him to print.

For example? Looks like they publish plenty of self serving articles.

[GOPJ]

The idea was that rather than figuring out ‘the people’ that the focus should be put on figuring out the editor.

Th psychology behind the study was that editors would feel good about rejecting self-serving pieces (this is a conflict with editors - who really do want to believe they're protecting their readers... it's a balance... “do we reject what is obviously a good story just because we know it comes from ... “X” knowing X has an agenda tec etc... ) Lots of legitimate 'soul searching - (but to no avail...)

Turns out if MORE self-serving stories are added to the packet (easy ones to reject) that the average editor will accept MORE of the other stories - which also are 'self serving' but not 'as' self-serving.