The Rainbow Bridge Editorial Policy is informed by our Common Ground, and reflects our aspiration to communicate in a way that reflects our Community’s values.
Convention 1: Celebrating diversity – Owning our statements.
Guideline 5 of the Common Ground states:
I wholeheartedly respect other people – their differences, views, origins, backgrounds and issues.
As such, we request that people use ‘I’ statements in their submissions – recognising that you are expressing your own personal views and beliefs, which may not necessarily be shared by others.
Beginning sentences with ‘qualifying statements’ such as ‘In my experience…’ / ‘I believe that…’ etc, shows ownership of our views, without presenting them as ‘universal truths’, or that you are speaking on behalf of others.
Convention 2: Direct Communication and Right of Reply.
Guideline 6 of the Common Ground states:
I use clear and honest communication with listening, heart-felt responses, loving acceptance and straightforwardness. I talk to people rather than about them…
If you write a piece which implies criticism of an identifiable individual or organisation, there is an expectation that you have already approached them directly, to discuss your perceived differences (rather than them reading it for the first time in the Rainbow Bridge).
If, having done this, you still wish to submit your piece, we request that you show it beforehand to the other person/organisation, to give them the opportunity to have a ‘right of reply’ letter published alongside your submission.
The Editorial Team reserves the right to decide that in some circumstances the Rainbow Bridge is not the appropriate place for processing conflict.
Convention 3: Issues of copyright.
Guideline 13 of the Common Ground states:
I respect the law of the land.
We understand that there are times when you may feel a desire to share a favourite poem/lyric, or an article that’s touched you. However, we will only publish copyrighted material if you can show that you have expressed and proved permission from the owner of the copyright.
Where copyright law prevents us from publishing a whole piece, we suggest that you choose 1-2 lines that give a flavour of the larger piece, write something which explains what it means to you, and give a reference where people can read the whole piece, if they are interested.
Similarly, accusations or statements that could leave the NFA open to libel, will not be published.
When a decision has to be made as to whether or not a submission meets all 3 of the conventions, the decision is made by the Editorial Team, selected by the NFA Council
Wherever possible, rather than refusing a piece, we will try to support you in getting your message over, while remaining within the editorial policy. However, unless the piece has been submitted in good time, this might mean that it is held over to the next week’s issue.
(Rainbow Bridge Editorial Policy – April 2021)
New Findhorn Association – Rainbow Bridge Editorial Policy – June 2014
Celebrating Diversity – Direct Communication – Protection
The RB editorial team is a co-operation between the NFA and the Findhorn Foundation Communications department. All submissions are read with an eye to adhering to the following conventions. Each week a NFA representative will take responsibility to communicate with submitters if their article is, for any of the following reasons, referred for further editing or response before publication. Ultimately the RB editorial team is committed to helping community members share with each other and deepen connections. The team can be contacted at;
Convention 1: Celebrating Diversity – Ownership of statements by the author
In the Rainbow bridge the Editorial Team seek to promote the same culture of deep sharing and ownership of statements in our written words as we often experience in our verbal sharings. If a Community member has done Experience week they are most likely exposed to this idea during the first afternoon. This is an invitation to make it personal and powerful by using “I” statements:
Using “I” statements within a submission to the Rainbow Bridge respects that there may be a diversity of opinions on an issue and allows the reader to connect to the author on a more personal level. This is in line with Guidelines 4 and 5 of the Common Ground; (see next page)
Examples of when this is not done;
- Statements presented as fact that could otherwise be seen as personal opinion
- i.e. the statement “Cats are mean” is not publishable whereas “I find cats to be mean” allows that others might experience cats as wonderful companions.
- Speaking on behalf of others, whether directly or implied (using ‘we’, ‘a bunch of us’, etc.)
Convention 2: Direct Communication – Right of Reply and Right Relationship
Extending from the importance of owning statements for Building Community the Editorial Team promote a culture of healthy interpersonal relations. The ‘Right of Reply’ has been a long standing editorial policy for the Rainbow Bridge and continues to be so. If an individual, group or organisation is named or inferred in what could be taken as a negative way, the Editorial Team may justifiably question if the Rainbow Bridge is the right place for processing conflict. At the least the individual, group or organisation named or implied must be given the opportunity to have a reply published beside the original article. In the first instance it is the original authors responsibility to show that individuals, groups or organisations named or inferred have been contacted. If a reply is provided we will seek to publish the two articles together. This is in line with Guidelines 6, 7 and 8 of the Common Ground; (see next page)
Convention 3: Protection – Following the rule of Law
The Editorial team will withhold from publication any copyrighted material for which express and proved permission has not been granted. For more info on Uk copyright law see;
Accusations or statements that could open the NFA or it’s agents to libel will not be published.