Well Covered

Associated Content continually refuse's to publish my material because of the mundane "well-covered" yadayada's they send along with the other lame excuses for rejecting particular content. My slideshow about the missing Jane Doe...."Well covered and irrelevant to what our readers are looking for" so thus no upfront payment....performance only. By this statement we find the typical bias prevalent throughout our society appearing to mean any well covered celebrity, baking idea, or practical piece of common knowledge will do. If the piece is against the grain, point in fact the reality of reality, lacking the glamor and ten-thousand dollar dresses of Julia Roberts then it is basically deemed irrelevant to AC's "content" agenda forcing I am sure more than simply myself to publish anyway.

It really isn't about the money it is the principle of what they are saying here with these type's of rejections. Much of my material here is performance pay only because AC deemed most of it below the AC standards for acceptable "Upfront payments".When it has political,social, or religious aspects and points out the hypocrisy within them all, the hypocrisy of the world in general, then they won't pay. Re-write an article or story reported in practically even media forum concerning Alec Baldwins "private" blow up with his own daughter on a cell phone and now you have AC raising their eyebrows in interest. Pfffft, whatever.