And yet there are limits, presumably. I can't imagine PodCastle would run a story whose theme was, "Racial differences are insurmountable, and no matter how hard they try, non-white people can never be as good as white people," for instance.
I was also troubled by the thematic underpinnings of this story, but I tend not to take it the extra step and complain about "promoting X," where X is a philosophical construct I dislike or disagree with. I voiced my qualms about the themes and left it at that. However, I think "They're just stories" is a disingenuous defense at best, as is "They'd be limiting themselves if they only wrote from one political agenda."
Editors have opinions. Editors have biases. Pretending that it's an open free-for-all and there's no way to control what sort of themes or messages one chooses to publish would be dishonest. The REASON we have editors, in fact, is to provide a filter for the content. Pretending to total political/moral/ethical objectivity would make for a poor magazine/book/podcast, and the idea of someone disclaiming responsibility on those grounds is troubling to me. I think it's quite fair to hold an editor accountable for the morals, philosophies, and ethics outlined in the works they choose to publish.
Please note I'm not calling for censorship. I'm not even calling for an open response and justification from the editors of PodCastle either in general or in this particular case. I do want to make it clear, though, that one can and should hold editors in general responsible for the moral teachings their publications endorse. That can mean directly addressing them, ceasing to patronize their publications, or publicly voicing one's anger/disappointment/dismay.
