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.