John Lyman on Editorial Judgment, Global Readership, and Independent Publishing

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 speaks with John Lyman about editorial judgment, difficult submissions, global readership, and sustaining International Policy Digest. Lyman discusses rejecting grievance-driven India-Pakistan commentary, reassessing Middle East coverage, avoiding pro-Trump advocacy, seeking more Latin American submissions, tracking readers from China, North America, Europe, and Asia, and prioritizing contributor payment if funding improves. He also reflects on popular Ukraine articles and autism advocacy challenging harmful misconceptions online today.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What topic have you never touched because you do not want to? Alternatively, what topic do you consistently avoid despite receiving submissions about it?

John Lyman: As far as I am aware, I have published content on nearly every major issue imaginable. After running the website for so many years, there are very few topics that have not crossed my desk.

That said, there are subjects that I have grown tired of publishing. One example is India-Pakistan relations. Writers from both countries frequently use the platform to attack the other side.

The submissions often follow a predictable pattern: India is entirely at fault, Pakistan is entirely at fault, or one side is portrayed as wholly virtuous while the other is portrayed as wholly villainous.

At a certain point, those articles cease to provide meaningful analysis and become exercises in national grievance and mutual accusation. As a result, I have become much less willing to publish that type of content.

I have largely stopped publishing that type of content because I find the argument tedious. The claim is almost always that everything is the other side’s fault. In reality, most conflicts involve responsibility on multiple sides. It takes two to tango.

At the moment, I probably have four or five submissions in my inbox dealing with India-Pakistan relations, and I will likely reject most of them. The problem is that many of the writers are unwilling to take a holistic view of the issue. They do not acknowledge that their own country may share responsibility for the poor state of relations.

Both India and Pakistan bear responsibility for aspects of the conflict. India has made mistakes. Pakistan has made mistakes. Yet many submissions from both sides present a one-dimensional narrative in which all the blame falls on the other country.

I used to encounter something similar with writers from Armenia and Azerbaijan. They would submit articles that largely blamed one another for every problem in the region. Over time, those submissions became less common as conditions stabilized somewhat and the debate evolved.

Many younger writers, particularly those who are still in college or have recently graduated, tend to write from a strongly ideological perspective. I understand why that happens, but I am less interested in publishing that sort of content today. I find it repetitive, unproductive, and ultimately unhelpful.

To be candid, I may lose some readers because of this position, but I have become comfortable making certain editorial judgments.

For example, I generally do not publish content that seeks to minimize or excuse Israel’s responsibility for its actions in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or the broader region. Over the years, I have published Israeli writers who have been sharply critical of their own government’s policies, particularly regarding Gaza and the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.

I have also worked with Lebanese writers and Iranian writers who have written extensively about developments in the region. In some cases, contributors have disappeared from contact, and I don’t know what happened to them. Given the conflicts in the region, I have not heard from some contributors in a long time, despite attempts to reach them.

When I first launched the website, I was more willing to publish content from across the entire spectrum of opinion on Middle Eastern affairs. That included pieces that placed greater responsibility on Palestinian factions, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, or other regional actors.

Over time, however, my editorial judgment has changed. I have become less willing to publish arguments that portray Israel primarily as a victim acting in self-defence while minimizing its role in shaping regional realities. Whether that is a limitation of my own perspective is a fair question. Still, it is an honest reflection of how my views have evolved.

The same applies to pro-Trump content. I do not publish articles from committed Trump supporters. I strongly disagree with Donald Trump politically, and I do not see value in providing a platform for arguments that seek to promote him.

That does not mean I exclude conservatives. I regularly publish conservatives and Republicans who support free trade, advocate for a strong foreign policy, or hold traditionally conservative positions. What I generally avoid is content that functions primarily as advocacy for Trump himself.

As for topics I have covered, I have probably published content on nearly everything I have ever wanted to learn about. Over the years, the website has featured articles on subjects ranging from the Aral Sea to corruption in Nepal and countless issues in between.

There are certainly countries and regions that remain underrepresented. Some smaller states in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, receive relatively little coverage simply because they receive few submissions about them. But in terms of subject matter, the publication has covered an extraordinarily broad range of topics.

There are still regions where I would like to publish more content. South America is a good example. I do not have a particularly large readership in Latin America, and I would welcome more submissions from there.

Overall, though, I think the website has covered a remarkably broad range of subjects over the years.

Jacobsen: Where are most of your readers located today? What are the top three countries?

Lyman: China is often near the top. The United States remains a major source of readership as well. Canada is significant, and Australia, India, and Pakistan also generate substantial traffic.

The rankings fluctuate considerably. At times, readership from China drops, only to be replaced by a surge from Russia. There have been periods when readership from Russia increased dramatically, and I was never entirely sure why.

At one point, I even noticed a surprising number of readers from North Korea. Again, I have no explanation for that. It is one of the interesting aspects of monitoring website analytics.

I enjoy looking at the readership maps because they reveal how articles travel. If I publish a piece focused on a particular country, I will often see readership increase noticeably in that country shortly afterward. Watching those patterns emerge is fascinating.

Broadly speaking, most readers come from Asia, Europe, and North America.

Jacobsen: Are people reading the articles in English?

Lyman: Some are, certainly. English serves as a common language for many readers worldwide.

At the same time, translation technology has improved enormously. Google Translate and similar tools have become remarkably effective. At one point, I considered offering content in multiple languages, but maintaining that system would have added significant additional work and complexity.

For practical reasons, the website remains primarily in English.

Jacobsen: If you suddenly received a substantial amount of funding, what would you do with it?

Lyman: The first thing I would do is pay contributors.

I have many long-term contributors who have supported the publication for years, and they deserve compensation for their work. That would be my highest priority.

I would also invest in improvements to the website itself. The current version of the site is roughly eight years old. It has held up surprisingly well, with nothing fundamentally broken, but many areas could be modernized and improved.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

I might even consider changing the publication’s name. I have never been completely satisfied with International Policy Digest. If I were starting from scratch, I might choose something shorter.

That said, my primary focus would still be on contributors. I would want to compensate the people who have consistently supported the publication over the years, including writers such as yourself and many others who have regularly contributed content.

I may contribute a small amount as well. Still, the majority of any funding will go toward supporting contributors and strengthening the publication.

Jacobsen: What has been the most popular article on the website?

Lyman: Interestingly enough, your article about the Canadian sniper performed extremely well.

There were even individuals who contacted me afterward seeking information about the interview subject. Some wanted to conduct their own interviews and asked whether I had contact information.

I declined those requests. Even if I had been able to provide additional information, I would not have done so.

That article generated substantial interest.

Another surprisingly successful piece focused on the Algerian film industry. As I recall, it attracted an exceptionally large readership, reaching into the millions of views.

More broadly, it is often difficult to predict what will resonate with readers. Some articles that seem highly specialized attract enormous audiences, while others that appear timely and important receive relatively little attention.

Lately, however, Ukraine-related content has consistently performed very well. Readers are clearly interested in the war, its consequences, and the people affected by it. Articles connected to Ukraine tend to attract significant attention.

Jacobsen: That is fascinating.

Lyman: One topic I also find interesting involves autism advocacy and public misconceptions about autism.

I have a contributor on the autism spectrum who writes extensively about organizations and advocacy groups that he believes are ineffective or misleading. His work often challenges popular narratives and fundraising campaigns that, in his view, do little to address the real needs of autistic individuals.

One of his recurring concerns is the persistence of myths about autism. For example, he has written critically about attempts to associate autism with violence or mass shootings, arguing that such claims are both inaccurate and harmful.

Those articles tend to generate strong reactions because they challenge widely circulated assumptions and force readers to reconsider what they think they know about autism.

One reason those articles perform well is that there are a great many misconceptions and conspiracy theories surrounding autism. Some of those myths can be genuinely harmful.

The writer I mentioned does an excellent job of challenging those narratives. There aren’t many people actively rebutting these claims online. He writes compassionately about his own experiences with autism, including the challenges of being stereotyped, misunderstood, and pigeonholed. Readers respond to that honesty, and his articles tend to perform very well.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, John.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer-Editor for The Good Men Project with more than 1,900 publications on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.