Because "it was the outside propaganda of the Jews, led by The Times," the editor claimed, "that had made it necessary to lynch Frank".
And yes, the editors claim that they too have had to reject some submissions.
The reader might take issue with the editors' claim that the railway is "as close as earthly things get to perfection" – as indeed do many of the poets and songwriters on board – but there are plenty of nostalgic pleasures to be had here.
And so far the bloggers and booksellers have been enthusiastic, going along with the Doubleday editors' claim that it is "a tale of unbearable suffering and ultimate redemption, a love story that spans centuries and renders the ordinary laws of probability … irrelevant".
Like many of their peers, JGIM editors claim that "the quality of the papers published in the Journal depends on both the authors and the external reviewers who help the editors select the best papers and improve their presentation".[3] We distinguish here between reviewer recommendations (i.e. accept/revise vs. reject) and reviewer comments (narrative assessment and suggestions for improvement).
One might add that this argument is sometimes even taken too far, for example when the editors claim that "by dynamically relating decision-making at the micro-level to social structures and institutions at the meso- or macro- level this approach avoids individualistic as well as ecological reductionism" (p. 294).
The Mail on Sunday editor claimed that "a substantial sum on money" had been paid to Mr Whittamore during the years he worked for the Mail titles.
When Reagan died, Sir Harold Evans, the former Sunday Times editor, claimed that "the relationship between Thatcher and President Reagan was closer even than Churchill and Roosevelt".
The Mail editor claimed that his paper, which has been condemned for its treatment of the late father of the Labour leader Ed Miliband, shared common ground with The Guardian, which has faced criticism for its coverage of secret files leaked by computer contractor Edward Snowden.
Mark Melson, Shreveport Times Amusement editor, claimed that it "may prove interesting to some viewers for one reason or another" but was "ultimately unsatisfying".
