How to deal with editors - a question.

[Guido]

I am the classical music critic for my university's newspaper. Last week my CD review which was already rediculously short (200 words), was cut down (butchered) to 150 words and in the process the message of the review changed subtly. The awkward ellision of a few of the sentences also made it look like I had crap grammar. (I know my grammar is often suspect here, but I do try hard to get it right when it matters!)

So my question is this: Should I reasonably expect to be able to review any cuts that an editor makes before it goes out for publication? Or is this just one of the frustrations of the job? I want to be fully responsible for any harsh words of criticism I make, and also just more generally I want to be sure that a review with my name on it accurately reflects my views.

[MN Dave]

I am the classical music critic for my university's newspaper. Last week my CD review which was already rediculously short (200 words), was cut down (butchered) to 150 words and in the process the message of the review changed subtly. The awkward ellision of a few of the sentences also made it look like I had crap grammar. (I know my grammar is often suspect here, but I do try hard to get it right when it matters!)

So my question is this: Should I reasonably expect to be able to review any cuts that an editor makes before it goes out for publication? Or is this just one of the frustrations of the job? I want to be fully responsible for any harsh words of criticism I make, and also just more generally I want to be sure that a review with my name on it accurately reflects my views.

What did your contract say?

[Guido]

There is no contract - I'm not employed by them as it's all done for free.

Thanks for that ' - a really great help.

Cheers!

[bhodges]

I think it contributes to a good working relationship to be able to review edits before you have your name put on something, especially if the edits drastically change the content or structure.

When I work with my editor at Juilliard, he sends back a piece with his suggested edits, sometimes with questions (e.g., "Is this really the case?" or "Is this date right?").  Most of the time his suggestions are very good and make the piece better.  But I've never had to just accept his word blindly, without question.

Depending on your relationship to the editor, you might politely suggest that if your work is misinterpreted, it makes the paper in general look not so good, and that you would very much appreciate just a single opportunity to review changes before they are made.  

Hope you are successful!  

Just saw the reply above, and have to agree with "a good editor wants to know."  No good editor wants the paper to represent anyone badly.  I would think a good editor would also want to garner some trust from the writers, as well, that their work will be handled properly.

--Bruce

[secondwind]

My limited experience in the world of journalism came as a college intern at the New York Times.  There, I saw how a young city reporter handled a similar situation with the city editor:  while screaming accusations of butchery and cursing him out in very inventive language, she hurled her typewriter at him.  Well, heaved, actually--it was one of those very heavy old Underwood models.  (And, yes, it really was that long ago!)  Typewriters don't fly very fast, and perhaps he'd had prior experience in dodging them--he just stepped aside, let the typewriter crash to the floor by his feet, and continued whatever conversation he was having when she let fly.  So, that's one way to deal with an editor--but throwing your laptop won't be nearly as satisfying. 

I think Mr. Apostrophe's and Bruce's suggestions are much better, actually.

[bhodges]

My limited experience in the world of journalism came as a college intern at the New York Times.  There, I saw how a young city reporter handled a similar situation with the city editor:  while screaming accusations of butchery and cursing him out in very inventive language, she hurled her typewriter at him.  Well, heaved, actually--it was one of those very heavy old Underwood models.  (And, yes, it really was that long ago!)  Typewriters don't fly very fast, and perhaps he'd had prior experience in dodging them--he just stepped aside, let the typewriter crash to the floor by his feet, and continued whatever conversation he was having when she let fly.  So, that's one way to deal with an editor--but throwing your laptop won't be nearly as satisfying. 

This made me laugh...a lovely little story.

--Bruce

[Dana]

Can you ask your editor for a projected word count next time, so they won't have anything to cut?

[Guido]

Thanks everyone for this advice - I'll try and talk to him soon.

Word counts are a fickle thing, especially if one is sesquipidalian and tries to scintillate with extraordinarily eldritch and polysyllabic syntaxial structures.

[SonicMan46]

Can you ask your editor for a projected word count next time, so they won't have anything to cut?

Dana's comment above is important and those by others valuable!

I've been a 'medical writer' (and 'editor' of my resident/fellow's manuscripts w/ my name attached) for 30 years; obviously, not the same as writing for a newspaper or other periodical, but often certain generalities do apply.

In my field (and likely even more so in other areas), the amount of 'space' being allotted to your article (or letter, chapter, etc.) is one of the most crucial determinants of 'how much' you should write - if given those specifications, then stick to the allotment as close as possible.  As an example, I've written on medical radiology which often includes many illustrations - typically guidelines are provided for the number of 'double-spaced' text pages, illustration number/size, references, etc. - best to come close or severe editing and deletion of pictures will result.  So, first find out 'what' amount of text is desired (i.e. probably 'word count' for your needs).

Now, if you come close to the 'space' allotment, then the editing done will often involve just changes in words, grammar, etc. - obviously, this may alter the meaning or impact of your writing intentions, but publishers and their editors seem to have their own styles and choices (and I've found that these don't always agree w/ my feelings nor w/ that of others - i.e. conflicting viewpoints); ideally (as suggested by Bruce), you should be allowed to see the suggested edits and make comments concerning your agreement - this has worked well in my field but may not be an option in other types of writing, esp. freelance?  And also keep in mind that those making the 'edits' may have little knowledge of what you are writing about and do not understand the changes made relative to your own explanations.

Without prolonging my response, I would emphasize that you need to first follow guidelines given by the 'editor' concerning the length of the submission desired (whether in pages or words), then write you review(s) without considering the length; after your initial draft, look at the 'length' (it will always be longer then asked!) - start editing so that the meaning meets your desires and you finally reach the 'length' goal requested; now, this may take up to 5-6 edits but that's what concise and good writing is all about.  Although I'm not a professional editor, I've been amazed for years editing some of the first drafts from my trainees, in which I was able to reduce their lengths by a third or a half with not only maintaining the same concepts and points, but making each much clearer to read.

Of course, many other comments can be made as to how to 'edit' an initial draft, but the above might be useful to you - good luck! 

[Harpo]

So my question is this: Should I reasonably expect to be able to review any cuts that an editor makes before it goes out for publication? Or is this just one of the frustrations of the job? I want to be fully responsible for any harsh words of criticism I make, and also just more generally I want to be sure that a review with my name on it accurately reflects my views.

Journalists are often taught that their subjects may not read the article beforehand, but that doesn't apply to the writer-editor relationship.

It should be easy for your editor to email your review back for a quick look or a question, so that you can correct any editing mistakes or even make cuts yourself. You can tell the editor that incorrect articles make the paper less credible. Email can make the back-and-forth process very quick. It's to an editor's advantage to double-check with you. I once wrote an article about a Theater Gallery and specifically stated that it was run by the Theater. Without asking me, the editor wrote that it was run by the Arts Council, and the Theater people got mad. Although it was the editor's laziness, my byline was on the article.

I agree that word count is important, and it's actually fun to try to fit your message into a specific number of words, almost like a jigsaw puzzle. Many amateur writers think that their every word is precious and usually write too much, repeat themselves. etc. Editors often have particular spaces allotted to articles.  All that being said, I have had good relationships with my editors, since our common goal is to have a good publication. They probably won't mind your suggestions.

[Guido]

macaronic - beautiful word - Never heard it before!

Again thanks for all this info.

I should point out that they said I was allowed 200 words last week which I did stick to, but then they changed their mind at the last minute to 150, so I was rather surprised with the result. But this week they've definitely said I can have 300! The luxury!

I've just sent it off, so we'll see how it turns out.

[Herman]

One thing that's important if you contribute this kind of material  -  reviews that are so short that it's virtually impossible to say anything meaningful  -  is not to read them when the paper runs them, to avoid frustration at what happened to the final product.

Since you're not getting paid for this I suspect you're doing this so as to get free tickets and / or cd's. I could say this is what's ruining arts journalism, people working for free, but it's too late. Too many are indeed doing this.

[MN Dave]

I could say this is what's ruining arts journalism, people working for free, but it's too late. Too many are indeed doing this.

QFT

[Guido]

One thing that's important if you contribute this kind of material  -  reviews that are so short that it's virtually impossible to say anything meaningful  -  is not to read them when the paper runs them, to avoid frustration at what happened to the final product.

Since you're not getting paid for this I suspect you're doing this so as to get free tickets and / or cd's. I could say this is what's ruining arts journalism, people working for free, but it's too late. Too many are indeed doing this.

I'm doing it because I'm extremely passionate about classical music, am thinking of going into journalism as a career, think I can do it better than most of the people who have written for the paper before and also I am knowledgable enough to do so with at least some authority. I would do it even if I had to pay for tickets, though of course it is a nice perk of the job that one gets in for free.

150 words is ridiculous but 300 is just about enough to give an ok impression of a concert. Obviously I'd like 500 or 700, but I just need to accept that for the time being, classical music journalism does not garner enough interest to justify more words in this particular newspaper. Who knows, maybe if I'm good enough, they'll extend my quota.

[Joe Barron]

So my question is this: Should I reasonably expect to be able to review any cuts that an editor makes before it goes out for publication? Or is this just one of the frustrations of the job?

Too often the latter, unfortunately. I am a news editor, and the news editor does in fact have final say over what goes into the paper. Space is often tight, and things  need to be cut. If, however, the editor has falsified your meaning or wrecked your grammar, then he (or she) has not done his (or her) job properly. You do have the right to ask (politely) that in future, the editor show you the the finished copy --- not to let you restore anything, but only to make sure your meaning has not been changed. You are, after all, the classical expert, and as such, you are the one most qualified to just the accuracy of what you write. I have often had to rearrange sentences that went on too long or weren't as clear as they could be, and at times I do ask the reporter  to review what I've done to verify that I have not introduced any errors.

Editing is an age-old tradition, but arguing with editors is also an age old tradition. It should be a collaborative process. There is no right way or wrong way to deal with an editor, and for heaven's sake, it's a college newspaper. No one has the right to be a dictator. Just make sure you don't dig in your heels so firmly that you create bad feeling.

And good luck.

[Joe Barron]

Oh, and being made to keep the article to 150 to 200 words is actually good practice for what the real world of journalism is like ...

[Joe Barron]

Always dangerous. When I was an undergrad, I made the mistake of describing a piece of William Bolcom's as "macaronic." A perfectly good word to use for a piece that had a little bluegrass, a little Bach, a little flamenco, like how an Ezra Pound poem would lapse into Latin in the middle of some street talk. But the editor couldn't find the word macaronic in the paperback dictionary she kept on her desk, so she changed it to "macaroni-like." It was a valuable lesson.

Hysterical, but scary. That editor should have come to you and asked what you meant to say. Describing music as macaroni-like makes no sense anyway.