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.
No comments:
Post a Comment