Why We Should Love Editors, or Leave Them
When I first started writing for the UCSD Guardian, and I had no idea what an inverted pyramid or AP Style was, I was smitten that my editors could unscramble the mess of information and mangled sentences I turned in. I read every article published and soaked up the changes. By the time I had an article run without edits, I thought I was a pro.
I learned journalism through those edits, and I remember all the new writers being proud when they got an unedited, published article back then.
We’ve all come to realize we’re not pros, but a curious thing happened a couple of months ago: The articles I wrote for my local paper stopped getting edited. Instead of being thrilled with my progress as a journalist, I began to worry even more about the quality of my work.
I have learned—and all credit goes to a beautiful and talented editor—that everyone’s work needs a second opinion, sometimes a third. If you know what good writing is, chances are you can find a few things to fix in a New Yorker or Esquire article, let alone in a local paper.
I often cringe while reading the La Jolla Light. The latest article I read pushed the bar: a reporter’s investigation into potholes involved nothing more than a drive along La Jolla Parkway to count them. Another story, at the tail end of racial tensions at UCSD, praised Chancellor Marye Anne Fox; it’s only source: Chancellor Marye Anne Fox. There is decent work in the paper too, but it gets buried under the mockable.
When editors run out of ink, from laziness or lack of skill, the readers suffer. But the writers suffer too, whether they know it or not.
There are times, as my work is being revised, that I cringe. A quote I like or a sentence I spent time on gets chopped and it feels like getting punched in the throat. When I’m asked for clarification, I get defensive—even when I know the fixes are easy to make.
I have heard so many new journalists like myself decry the terror their editors let loose on their babies. But the final product is always better than the original. Always.
We’re not getting cut and changed and asked for more information because of our editor’s politics, or because we’re too controversial, which are great reasons to be upset about edits. Our art isn’t being censored—it’s being refined. (And I haven’t even touched on how editing shaped our past or will be more important as all media goes digital: Read a snippet on that here.)
I have worked almost a year for a local newspaper. A paper I like to think is better than those I mock. But I still rip its stories apart. I still cringe as I catch things that should have been clarified or chopped, my own work included. And when it doesn’t get changed, I wonder how a better editor might have helped my writing.
Edit-free articles are something I hope for but don’t welcome. No new journalist should. Because if you’re not being edited, you’re not being taught, and chances are, your editor is letting you down.
