Letters to the Editor
-
A letter in need of an editor
Thanks for the fine article on editing Gary. I think you are an excellent writer and a very good editor. I’d love to see some of your magic wear off on some of the other editors at Salon.
I think one of the most important tasks of an editor is deciding which content is suitable for the readership— something that Salon has not been necessarily excelling at recently. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the majority of premium subscribers like myself, log into Salon to get away from the maddening din of the mainstream media. If I want the latest news on Paris Hilton’s incarceration woes or to participate in the international hand wringing fest over the fate of Harry Potter then there are literally thousands of other media outlets that are covering those trenchant topics ad nauseum. I personally think it’s pretty annoying to wake up to Salon articles that are pandering to the same puerile shtick that all the other noise machines are yammering on about that day.
Another job of the editor is to weed out the writing that does not reflect the aesthetic or philosophical mindset of your readership. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be given contrarian or differing views—just that those views should be tempered by reason, critical thinking and sound scholarship. Case in point: whether or not you agree or disagree with Joe Conason or Glenn Greenwald, you know that you're dealing with heavyweights when you read them. They back up what they say and exhibit the restraint and authority one expects from professional journalism.
On the other hand, Salon has Camille Paglia, a writer that the majority of Salon readers have shown contempt for by repeatedly and mercilessly excoriating in the letters to the editor. Paglia is a writer that throws ten-dollar academic terms around to cover up the vacuousness of her thinking, lacks the critical thinking skills to be considered a serious journalist (or philosopher) and whose writing is a paean to personal prejudice. Salon once referred to her as “Our fave pop philosopher”; and epitaph that I hope to never see in print again.
To keep a writer like Paglia around when so many of the readers have spoken up so articulately on the matter demonstrates one more attribute of bad editing —hubris and contempt for your readership.
-
Freudian slip of the day
epitaph that I hope to never see in print again.
An editor would have changed that to "epithet" and lost the laugh.
:)
-
Against the tide
Yes in the age of blogging, editors are needed more than ever. But it cuts much more the other way.
The reason for this - and of course I'm referring to the good bloggers - is that the journalists and editors of the MSM are now being held accountable, at least to some degree. In the process we are clearly witnessing the kind of incompetence that dominate the medium.
So yes better editors are needed, but not to deal with bloggers, but to deal with the traditional elite media who had never had their feet held to the fire as they are now.
-
Journalists
Writing posts to Salon has given me respect for journalists, whether writers or editors; that they can knock out polished work on such short notice. I'll do my best with a post and then groan, once it's in print, at various bobbles.
In my usual writing I go over and over something; let it go cold, see it fresh, then re-write; let it go cold again, re-write, et cetera. Going cold is part of the writing, which is exactly fine for what I do. But that talent of seeing something for the first time immediately after going over and over it is not one that comes naturally to me.
I see how the writer/editor relationship could be part of what makes this happen, but, still, it's largely foreign. Yeah, exotic.
-
If...
Salon really cared about editing, it would shut down this anyone-can-post letters format and run a letters column that was, you know, EDITED.
-
It's not all bad on the web...
I knew he'd bring it up somewhere in his article, and sure enough, there it was:
Some utopians may dream that an anarcho-Wikipedia model will prevail, that a vast self-correcting democracy of amateurs will end up pointing readers to the most worthwhile pieces. But that is only "editing" in its crudest, most general form -- it's really sorting.
Don't lose hope Mr Kamiya. It's not that bad.
While some writers do post the equivalent of notebook dumps to Wikipedia, quite a few us do nothing but make what's there useful. We fix punctuation. We make verbs agree. We turn translation artifacts into English. We take screenfuls of text and turn them into coherent paragraphs. We edit.
The "rewrite men" are still around.
-
Look at me, look at me
Sorry but we can all gush on about our perceived importance of our work but...
Every lie printed in the media is signed off by an editor. Someone actually edited Judith Miller can you believe that?
There are many references to the art of writing and the inner turmoil of the writer / editor relationship (like no one else has a boss to review their work) but only one to fact checking. There in lies my problem with editors. I'm sure the aforementioned had an editor that moved a couple of commas here and there but the lies that lead us to an illegal war and subsequent failed occupation remained. But the grammar was spot on!
Thanks for the offer to guide us 'uncleansed' through through the internet mire but I found Glenn Greenwald (which lead me Salon when he moved), Juan Cole, democracyunderground, crooks and liars, democracynow plus many others with out the help of an all knowing editor. So thanks; but no thanks.
-
Why not "credit" the editor(s) for each piece?
I've often wondered who specifically edits pieces I've read, particularly in the MSM, but also here at Salon. Wouldn't it be a good idea to credit the editor(s) along with the original author? I can't think of a good reason not to do so, but can think of plenty for why it would be a good one. For one thing, it'd make bad editors/editing more accountable (particularly when they let false or partial facts through, etc.).
--Ron Robertson