A Short Note on Editorial Policies at the Duck of Minerva

7 September 2012, 2102 EDT

There’s been a lot of on-blog and off-blog chatter about reactions to Brian’s most recent issue of The Canard, which some (though certainly not all) readers found offensive for its satirical use of stereotypes about the Democratic Republic of Congo. Brian wrote a rebuttal to his critics, which also triggered a negative reaction among segments of our readership. Other commenters weighed in to question whether posts in the style of The Onion ought to be held to the same standard as regular academic posts

Despite the strong feelings on all sides, almost everyone conducted themselves in a civil and productive manner. One commentator, however, crossed five or six lines (and an ocean, for good measure) in a reply that concluded with hopes for Brian’s death. I somehow missed the comment for a few hours. My standard response to unacceptable behavior in comments is disemvowelment, but I was unsure whether to leave any trace of the offending reply

Before I could make a decision, Brian’s rebuttal disappeared. PTJ and I independently contacted Brian, who confirmed to us that he had deleted it on his own initiative.

I want to take a moment to clarify some important points about the editorial policy of the Duck:

We are not a magazine or a journal. Each blogger is an independent writer who is responsible for his or her own content and who produces it free of charge for the benefit of those who feel like reading it. There is no full-time paid editor. We do not censor or modify the substance of posts. I occasionally edit an already-published piece to ensure it conforms to style guidelines, such as font, font size, line spacing, and so forth. But that’s it. So if you want to provide specific feedback on a blogger or on a post, it is most appropriate to email that blogger directly or leave a comment in the thread.
Building on that, you should read every post as if it comes with a disclaimer that “the views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of any other blogger at the Duck of Minerva.” In fact we often disagree with one another, sometimes openly. However we also recognize one another’s right to write freely. We hope that the tone and tenor of comments in the future will reflect this basic notion of academic freedom and express concerns or make corrections of fact without needless ad hominem attacks against individual contributors or the community.
We expect some basic level of civility from members of our community. We will, at a minimum, edit comments we deem particularly noxious or engaged in unproductive trolling. We reserve the right to disemvowel or delete comments; we will exercise this right at our discretion. Comments that hope for the death of others, for example, will likely be deleted.

Dan Nexon

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

4 Comments

LFC on 8 September 2012 at 14.17 EDT

“One commentator, however, crossed five or six lines (and an ocean, for
good measure) in a reply that concluded with hopes for Brian’s death.”

I read that comment and I think it’s worth pointing out that the comment was clearly satirical (just as was Brian Rathbun’s original post). The commenter was primarily making fun of Brian’s critics who were faulting Brian’s original post for, among other things, not displaying more knowledge of the DRC. I find it, frankly, impossible to believe that anyone who read that comment with any care and with attention to its tone could have failed to realize that it was satire. Maybe expressing a hope for someone’s death even in a satirical context crosses a line. But the context should be acknowledged, it seems to me.
- GM on 8 September 2012 at 15.20 EDT
  
  For what it’s worth, the satire in that comment was completely lost on me. It just did _not_ seem satirical.
  
  Looks like most people did not read it that way either, as so many took it seriously!
  - Halvard on 9 September 2012 at 13.55 EDT
    
    So Brian Rathbun writes a satirical post, which a number of people disliked, and believed to be over the line, leading him to write a post about how to understand political humour. One satirical reply to this post was considered to be over the line (and not recognised as satire), and led to the latter post being pulled. Oh the meta-irony. For what it is worth, I believe that the second post should be put up again, so that the Duck readers can make up their own mind, but then again most readers will be able to find it through Google anyway.
    - dnexon on 9 September 2012 at 14.04 EDT
      
      Even if the response to Brian that we speak of was satirical, it was still inappropriate.
      
      Whether or not Brian’s follow-up appears is Brian’s decision, and you should contact him if you’d like him to reinstate it.

← Prior Post Next Post →