by Scott Douglas Jacobsen
How does John Lyman evaluate difficult submissions, ideological conflict, and evidence standards at International Policy Digest?
John Lyman is editor-in-chief of International Policy Digest, a global affairs publication he developed after graduate studies in European Studies at the University of Amsterdam and further work in Homeland Security at Virginia Commonwealth University. Beginning as a personal blog and portfolio, IPD grew into an international platform with thousands of contributors and articles. Lyman edits across geopolitics, human rights, conflict, media, technology, and public policy, emphasizing evidence, moderation, careful editorial judgment, and global perspectives.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks John Lyman, editor-in-chief of International Policy Digest, about difficult editorial decisions, contributor ethics, ideological submissions, and evidence-based publishing. Lyman reflects on problematic articles, undisclosed conflicts of interest, Russia-Ukraine narratives, Iran opposition factions, contributors who died or survived repression, pseudoscientific claims, corruption debates, and the need to distinguish serious analysis from propaganda, grievance, and rhetorical performance in global affairs journalism today’s independent media ecosystem across borders and crises online.
Scott Douglass Jacobsen: What is the worst article you have ever received?
John Lyman: That is an interesting question. I have published around 30,000 pieces of content. Do you mean poorly written, or well written but advancing a terrible argument?
Jacobsen: Either. One category could be terribly written. The other could be sophisticated and well-written, but it would rest on a fundamentally terrible argument.
Lyman: Some examples may still be on the website. I will not name the writers involved.
One case involved a longtime contributor. Those situations can be difficult because someone may have written dozens of articles for the publication and contributed significantly over the years. Then they submit a piece arguing, for example, that Russia had legitimate reasons to fear Ukraine because of NATO enlargement and that this somehow justified the annexation of Crimea or broader Russian actions.
I personally disliked those arguments. However, because the writer had been such a longstanding contributor, I often found myself in a difficult position. I valued their contributions and wanted to maintain the relationship. In some cases, I would edit the article to moderate or soften the arguments that I considered problematic. Even then, I sometimes felt uncomfortable publishing it.
One challenge is that contributors are not being paid. It is not as though I can assign a major rewrite and expect someone to spend additional time on the piece. So there is always a balancing act involved.
Another example involved a writer who sincerely argued that poaching and culling certain animal populations in Africa could be beneficial for long-term species management. He was not being provocative for the sake of it; he genuinely believed the argument he was making.
What made the situation more complicated was that I later learned he was a big-game hunter who organized hunting tours in Africa. I did not know that when I published the article. Had I known, I would have wanted that background disclosed to readers because it represented a significant potential conflict of interest.
What bothered me was not simply that I disagreed with his argument. It was that he was not fully transparent about his personal and professional involvement in the activity he was defending. I felt that important context had been withheld.
There was also another contributor whose background was far more troubling. I do not want to overstate it, but during the Saddam Hussein era in Iraq, he had reportedly been involved in interrogation and torture activities associated with the Ba’athist regime.
He did not exactly conceal it, but neither did he volunteer that information. He had been very successful at distancing himself from that part of his past. I only learned about it later.
From a journalistic standpoint, I found the background fascinating, even though the underlying actions were deeply disturbing. The world contains many uncomfortable histories, and people often carry them with them. What troubled me was not simply what he had done, but the fact that readers were not given enough context about who he was and where he came from.
He wrote several articles for the publication, and I felt that such a significant aspect of his biography should have been disclosed. Readers deserve to know when a writer’s past is directly relevant to the perspectives they are presenting.
I have occasionally discovered things about writers after the fact. In one case, I learned that a contributor had served time in prison for fraud-related offences. That did not particularly bother me. What bothered me more was learning that he had raised money for Donald Trump and donated to Trump’s reelection campaign.
What troubled me was not support for Trump during his first campaign, but continued support after the events of January 6. Personally, I found that difficult to reconcile. In some ways, that revelation bothered me more than learning about other contributors with far more troubling historical backgrounds.
As for poorly written content, there have certainly been articles that required extensive editing. However, most submissions are reasonably well written. Some writers from the Indian subcontinent, for example, have occasionally submitted pieces in which the arguments were not carefully developed. They would present numerous claims without fully connecting them into a coherent argument.
In some cases, those same articles would strongly defend Prime Minister Narendra Modi or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) while dismissing concerns about human rights, press freedom, or communal tensions. When a piece is both poorly argued and advancing positions that I believe overlook legitimate human rights concerns, I am far less inclined to publish it.
Throughout the years, I have encountered many moments when I have read a submission and thought, “That is a strange argument. Why would someone conclude that Putin was right, or that Trump was right, on this issue?”
At times, I make editorial changes based on my own judgment. I do not think of myself as particularly ideological. I am generally moderate in my outlook and tend to approach issues from a centrist perspective. As a result, when I edit articles, I often try to make arguments more coherent, balanced, and grounded in evidence rather than pushing them toward either political extreme.
Jacobsen: I have interviewed people who later died, whether from age, illness, or even murder. In some cases, I conducted their final interview. Have any of your writers died, been murdered, imprisoned, or tortured among the contributors who have written for the publication?
Lyman: Quite a few contributors have passed away, unfortunately. It is sad to think about.
One writer who stands out was Claire McCaskey. She was not the strongest writer technically, but she was exceptionally sincere. She knew many people, had trained for religious life at one point, and was one of the kindest contributors I worked with.
She regularly submitted articles, sometimes monthly, sometimes more frequently, and was deeply passionate about human rights and environmental issues. Because I believed in what she was trying to accomplish, I often spent extra time editing and refining her work.
I eventually learned from another writer that she had passed away. That news affected me more than I expected, because she had been such a sincere, genuinely good person.
There have been several other contributors who have died over the years, probably five or six in total.
Jacobsen: What were the general causes?
Lyman: Mostly old age and cancer. Several died from cancer, while others reached the end of their lives.
One case that stayed with me involved a contributor from Libya. I believe he has since passed away. He was also donating money to help support the website. At one point, his family contacted me and explained that he was in hospice care and was still making recurring monthly donations.
They asked me to stop the donations, and, of course, I did. That situation was deeply sad. It reminded me that behind every article and every email is a real person with a life, a family, and their own struggles.
I have also worked with writers who were imprisoned or tortured and who later wrote about those experiences. Some came from countries in the former Soviet sphere, including Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe. Those contributors often brought perspectives that were difficult, painful, and deeply personal, but also important to document and publish.
A few writers have gone to jail. In some ways, running the website has given me access to people I otherwise never would have encountered.
Years ago, before he was imprisoned, I had the opportunity to communicate with Alexei Navalny. At the time, he was still actively campaigning in Russia. He had not yet become the symbol of political opposition that he later became. That was certainly an interesting experience.
I have also spoken with people who survived torture and political repression. Some shared experiences connected to conflicts in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world. Those conversations were deeply informative and often very moving.
Fortunately, none of our contributors have been murdered. I am grateful for that. We have certainly had contributors with difficult or controversial backgrounds, but not that particular outcome.
Over the years, I have encountered many unusual and complicated individuals. We discussed earlier the former Ba’athist interrogator, for example. There have been others whose personal histories only became apparent after I had already worked with them.
I have also turned down articles submitted through representatives of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran. Running the website has taught me that certain issues are so politically charged that they become extremely difficult to cover constructively.
Iran is one of those subjects. If you publish an article from one faction, another faction immediately wants to respond. Before long, the publication becomes a battleground where competing groups use your platform to attack one another rather than engage in meaningful discussion.
Within segments of the Iranian opposition, there are competing camps with very different visions for the country’s future. Some support the Pahlavi family, while others support alternative opposition movements. In cities such as The Hague, where many Iranian dissidents and activists reside, these divisions can be very visible.
I allowed some of those disputes to play out on the website. What I found was that the arguments often became highly personal. Rather than debating ideas, people would attack one another, question motives, and engage in increasingly hostile rhetoric.
That is the sort of content I now edit heavily or decline altogether. I am not interested in turning the publication into a vehicle for internal factional disputes or personality cults. If someone wants to promote a political leader or attack a rival movement, that is generally not the kind of content I want to publish.
More broadly, I have noticed that some political and ideological environments normalize highly dehumanizing language. People sometimes describe opponents in terms that strip them of dignity or humanity. Regardless of where those attitudes originate, I find that kind of rhetoric corrosive to meaningful public discourse.
Jacobsen: Being in Ukraine, I encounter something similar. There appears to be an entire ecosystem of political rivalries and vested interests. Certain figures, such as Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and other regional political leaders, attract intense criticism from various camps.
I regularly encounter articles portraying particular politicians as uniquely corrupt, compromised, or willing to betray the country. Often, the language becomes highly personal rather than analytical. At that point, it starts to resemble rhetoric rather than argument.
I often don’t give that kind of material the attention it deserves. If someone wants to respond to another article through a carefully reasoned editorial, that is one thing. But when the content becomes primarily personal attacks, it is much harder to justify publication.
Lyman: I agree. In fact, I would like to amend my earlier answer regarding bad content because something else just occurred to me. There is a great deal of material that is not necessarily poorly written, but that is driven almost entirely by personal grievances, factional disputes, or ideological hostility. In many cases, that is far more difficult to deal with than a simple article that needs editorial improvement.
Another category of content that I routinely reject comes from various pseudoscientific or spiritual movements. Some organizations and communities make sweeping claims about the power of meditation, consciousness, or collective intention to solve major global problems.
For example, I regularly receive material from advocates of Transcendental Meditation and related movements. Some of these groups argue that large-scale meditation can prevent wars, reduce crime, or transform societies. There is a substantial industry built around those claims, complete with books, videos, conferences, and promotional materials.
I always turn that content down because I do not find the arguments persuasive. My response is straightforward: show me the evidence. The existence of books, YouTube channels, or organizations devoted to an idea does not make the idea true. Plenty of organizations promote claims that do not withstand scrutiny.
If I were revising my earlier answer about the worst content I receive, that category would certainly deserve mention. The material is often sincere, but sincerity is not a substitute for evidence.
Jacobsen: I tend to start with broader structural indicators and then work downward toward individual cases. For example, across the former Soviet region, corruption is clearly a significant issue in many post-Soviet states. At the same time, corruption is hardly unique to that region. Corruption exists in many countries, including the United States.
Lyman: Absolutely. Corruption is an unfortunate reality worldwide.
Years ago, when I received articles discussing corruption, my instinct was to react with moral outrage and say that corruption needed to be eradicated immediately. Today, I view the issue somewhat differently. Corruption remains a serious problem, but I am also aware of how widespread it is and how often accusations of corruption are deployed selectively for political purposes.
When people argue that Ukraine should not receive military or foreign aid because corruption exists there, I generally find that argument unconvincing. It is often used as a rhetorical device rather than a serious policy analysis.
Jacobsen: When I approach those questions, I usually rely on third-party indicators. For example, Transparency International’s corruption rankings provide one useful measure, even though methodologies evolve.
What I find most interesting is not simply where countries rank at a given moment, but the direction of change. Since 2022, there has been a noticeable divergence between Russia and Ukraine. Similarly, press freedom indices can provide additional context.
For example, recent press freedom rankings have placed Ukraine ahead of several countries that are not currently engaged in a large-scale war. That does not mean Ukraine is perfect, but it does suggest that broad claims about corruption or democratic decline require careful examination.
I have not encountered major obstacles in my reporting and interactions related to Ukraine. In many respects, the country has made substantial progress compared with earlier periods.
The broader point is that corruption may be a regional issue, but evaluating individual politicians or institutions still requires careful investigation on a case-by-case basis.
Lyman: I agree. Context matters. There is a significant difference between discussing systemic challenges and making accusations against specific individuals.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, John.