Dwindling Realms of Influence

In my last "real" post, I spoke about the role of editors and editing in government work, at least as it relates to my job. Since then, our realm of influence -- at least at my job -- has dwindled to almost nothing in comparison to what it was. We no longer may edit an entire document (unless it's an entirely new one), only the paragraphs receiving an update.

Which generally is not too terrible; but when it's bad, it's really bad -- references updated in one paragraph haven't gotten updated in the rest of the document, contradicting instructions make an appearance, poor writing in other sections never gets improved, and the whole document ends up a mishmash, stylistically speaking.

Worse yet, we aren't supposed to even ask certain questions anymore or make change suggestions in many cases.

My editorial little heart dies a little every time we let a document move forward to publication with so many easily fixed flaws. My only hope is that the new review process in place will catch more of the problems and force the departments to remedy them before we even ever see the documents.

In the meantime, I cherish the relationships forged between some of the authors and me, knowing that with them, at least, I can be (unofficially) candid about any issues I discover -- telling them in conversation what I can't in our paperwork. And because they know me, my work, and that I have their best interest (and the audiences!) at heart, they make those changes. They get the credit, but I'm okay with that in this case (we don't get byline anyway), since our whole purpose is to make sure the end product is the best it can be and (unofficially) to make our agency look good.

The authors pay me back with commendations, recommendations and positive feedback in my evaluations. And then I get a raise.

Wow! It's been a long time...

...since I last posted. Between work and my commute and trying to keep up with life at home and other writing responsibilities, I've just had to let this go by the wayside. But I'll be coming back to this on a more regular schedule soon!

Nationally Pervasive Underappreciation of Editors

Apparently, the underappreciation of editors/copyeditors extends beyond the newsrooms of America and deep into the Federal government.

For example, in one agency there are those whose job is to make sure that the documents assigned to them are not only formatted correctly (layout), but also accurate (fact-checking), correctly and clearly worded (editing) in terms of spelling, grammar and plain language, according to official guidelines (stylebook) and Federal law.

The authors (reporters/columnists) have raised a ruckus about this, charging them with changing the meaning of their work.

That being said, the editors not only consult with the authors about any changes or edits, but also have a requirement to run their edits past the author for approval before they can move on in the document publication process (unlike in the newsroom, where we do that as a courtesy and an extra check). This begs the question, have these authors approved those edits, then made a complete turn-about of disavowal and complaint? Or does this go beyond the author into the departments?

I will never understand.

When will writers in any field realize that--in general--we editors/copyeditors are not idiots, NOT out to get them, nor on a power trip? They may be the subject-matter experts, but we are the language usage experts. We may not be infallible, but then neither are the writers. That is why we need to work as members of the same team, covering one another's rear, as it were and striving toward the same goals of clarity & accuracy, whether in the newsroom or in the government.

An Unfortunate Subheading

The top story on the front page of the Washington Examiner's Sept. 29 edition contains a perfect example of what we were taught NOT to do in J-school.

(edited to add)

I wish I could have been in the newsroom to hear the conversation about that. Wonder what was going through the copyeditor's mind...

Here I go again!

It's been a while, I know.

My commute, job and the cares of a new house have been taking up most of my time. But, these things have provided me with outlets for my writing and editing. As mentioned before, my job is largely editing. But freelancing for a local quarterly and blogging for the local paper keeps my hand in journalism. My most last assignment for the magazine didn't even require me to do much of anything more than what I do every day -- ride the train.

I'd like to do more writing though - and get paid for all of it. Maybe when I get my life back on a regular schedule, I'll be able to look into other media outlets and pitch stories.

I'm keeping my eyes open and jotting down ideas.

Making the Big Bucks

Well, not really. But I am now a member of the salaried workforce. Remember the interview I mentioned two post ago?

Yeah, I got the job.

So these days, I get up at 5 a.m., commute an hour and 45 minutes to and from work in D.C. every day, and when I get home at around 7 p.m., I eat, pick out my clothes and lunch for the next day, and go unconscious until the morning.

And THAT's why I haven't posted in a month. That, and the fact that I'm doing well to keep up with the blog I'm under contract to write, let alone this one and the other personal blog I have. But it's temporary; I'm getting used to my new life schedule, so I should be back on track with regular posting soon.

Thanks for your patience!

When is a chimp not a chimp?

The flap over the Feb. 18 New York Post political cartoon by Sean Delonas is a strong argument for critical thought and pre-publication editorial review of images and implications of their associated meanings, both current and historical.

I can understand the Post's editor's insistence that the drawing was not meant to be racist and was intended to be commentary on two hot news issues. What I do not understand is how THAT particular illustration made it past the editors and copy editors in the first place given the manner in which the issues were juxtaposed.

History professor Jelani Cobb at Spelman College commented in a CNN.com article:

" 'When I looked at it, there was no getting around the implications of it," Cobb said. "Clearly anyone with an iota of sense knows the close association of black people and the primate imagery.' "


It may not have been intended to be racist, but it seems to demonstrate at least blatant ignorance.

In the same article:

"Cartoonist John Auchter of the Grand Rapids Business Journal in Michigan said Delonas had to expect people to be offended.

'The racial connotation of what he drew, it's really silly that either he or his editors couldn't anticipate that [reaction],' Auchter said. 'When I think about all the things that are thrown around here with the accusations of being racist ... that is one of the things as a cartoonist you have to be aware of -- what you're doing and that you know things are going to be taken that way. You are the first-line editor.' "

Both the chimpanzee attack story and criticism of the stimulus are newsworthy and are justifiable subjects for political cartoonists, but should have been (in my opinion) handled in separate frames.

It is said (I paraphrase), those who are ignorant of the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them. Let us grant that the cartoonist and none of the editors were somehow blind to ramifications of the associations and parallels drawn (no pun intended) in the picture. Still, the ensuing uproar resulting from its publication, definitely highlights the need for diversity in the newsroom, not merely in terms of the actual race or ethnicity of the personnel, but also in their cultural fluency.

As a copyeditor, I believe it is my duty to the reader to make sure that words or images do not convey inaccurate or unintended meanings, so I keep aware of the current and historical uses of terms, phrases and images, both in the U.S. and internationally, as well as their etymology and origins. I know I can't know everything, but I try. Fortunately for me, it's a pleasant task, since I'm all sorts of curious about other cultures, languages and idiomatic communications other than my own.

See also: Bob Steele's article and Keith Woods' article at the Poynter Institute's website