Interference on R2 - again

[Carl Childress]

I have no idea what happened to the thread where we were discussing editorial policies. Somebody deleted it, wrongly in my opinion. There was no real nastiness in any of the posts; indeed, there was much useful information.

I've tried to set the record straight with one last message referring to material posted by GarthB and TBBlue.

I hope it lasts long enough for everyone to read.

Carl

Originally posted by GarthB

Obviously that is the policy at officiating.com. In my experience, however, editors have not done this using the author's voice. Beginning such an insertion with the word "I" and not identifying it as an editor's note may be legal, but it's also misleading.

Garth, I had decided to let this thread go, but you continue to complain that I am "misleading" readers.

So I thought I'd go back to one of your articles and let the readers compare what YOU wrote with how it looked after MY edit.

I took the passage from the first article I reviewed, "Fitness for Officials Part I," which you submitted on November 12, 2002, and we published November 25, same year. I picked that one because it was the start of the last series you wrote for us, other than an interview of Steve Wilson, an NFL official. You had already written 35 pieces for us, so when you submitted that piece, you were well acquainted with my editing "style."

You wrote:

When I taught beginning band in an elementary school I used to tell students that there was a magical solution to all the problems they were having with their instruments. I would guarantee them that they could overcome these difficulties in just fifteen to thirty minutes a day. The magical solution? Practice. Spending time getting their hands, fingers and lips in shape.

I wrote:

When I taught beginning band in an elementary school I always had one or two students who just weren't getting the fingerings right on the first three notes. I used to tell them there was a magical solution to that problem that would guarantee they could overcome their difficulties in just one week. The magical solution? Practice. Every day.

The aftermath of the edit is also interesting -- to me. You asked that I delete Part I (which I had alredy edited and put in the hopper) and replace it with a new Part I. I argued we should keep the old Part I and make the new piece Part II, lengthening the series by one article. (More content for me, more money for you.)

On 11/23, two days before publication, I wrote you and said:

I have re-worked from THE MAGICAL SOLUTION to the end on the first part one, henceforth referred to as Part I. I also re-worded the last paragraph of the new part I, henceforth referred to as Part II, changing reference to the following installment from the second installment to "the next installment." Got it?

You replied:

Looks fine.

Of course, in those days, I was your friend ... and Peter Osborne was the enemy. (grin)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Aug 19th, 2004 at 02:33 PM]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I have no idea what happened to the thread where we were discussing editorial policies. Somebody deleted it, wrongly in my opinion. There was no real nastiness in any of the posts; indeed, there was much useful information.

I've tried to set the record straight with one last message referring to material posted by GarthB and TBBlue.

I hope it lasts long enough for everyone to read.

Carl

Garth, I had decided to let this thread go, but you continue to complain that I am "misleading" readers.

So I thought I'd go back to one of your articles and let the readers compare what YOU wrote with how it looked after MY edit.

I took the passage from the first article I reviewed, "Fitness for Officials Part I," which you submitted on November 12, 2002, and we published November 25, same year. I picked that one because it was the start of the last series you wrote for us, other than an interview of Steve Wilson, an NFL official. You had already written 35 pieces for us, so when you submitted that piece, you were well acquainted with my editing "style."

You wrote:

When I taught beginning band in an elementary school I used to tell students that there was a magical solution to all the problems they were having with their instruments. I would guarantee them that they could overcome these difficulties in just fifteen to thirty minutes a day. The magical solution? Practice. Spending time getting their hands, fingers and lips in shape.

I wrote:

When I taught beginning band in an elementary school I always had one or two students who just weren't getting the fingerings right on the first three notes. I used to tell them there was a magical solution to that problem that would guarantee they could overcome their difficulties in just one week. The magical solution? Practice. Every day.

The aftermath of the edit is also interesting -- to me. You asked that I delete Part I (which I had alredy edited and put in the hopper) and replace it with a new Part I. I argued we should keep the old Part I and make the new piece Part II, lengthening the series by one article. (More content for me, more money for you.)

On 11/23, two days before publication, I wrote you and said:

I have re-worked from THE MAGICAL SOLUTION to the end on the first part one, henceforth referred to as Part I. I also re-worded the last paragraph of the new part I, henceforth referred to as Part II, changing reference to the following installment from the second installment to "the next installment." Got it?

You replied:

Looks fine.

Of course, in those days, I was your friend ... and Peter Osborne was the enemy. (grin)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Aug 19th, 2004 at 02:33 PM]

So in your mind your change of my "I would guarantee them that they could overcome these difficulties in just fifteen to thirty minutes a day. The magical solution? Practice. Spending time getting their hands, fingers and lips in shape."

To your "I used to tell them there was a magical solution to that problem that would guarantee they could overcome their difficulties in just one week. The magical solution? Practice. Every day."

Is the same as inserting a completely new and incorrect thought and attributing it to the author as you did in Chad's article?

To quote a once trusted and honest man: Lah me.

[WindyCityBlue]

Ouch.



Or as our friend from Wheaton would edit...

"If you officiated more than one sport you wood no that in basketball and football that is called a persnal attack. I was at a meeting that discussed it by several major NCAA D-1 refreees, unlike you, and they all said that they would never say "ouch."

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Originally posted by TBBlue
In this instance, however, there was nothing malicious in what Carl did. It seems that he was just trying to help a writer clarify a point, and insert something to improve an article, in his judgement, for the benefit of the readers.

Originally posted by GarthB
Obviously that is the policy at officiating.com. In my experience, however, editors have not done this using the author's voice. Beginning such an insertion with the word "I" and not identifying it as an editor's note may be legal, but it's also misleading.

[1]Originally posted by Carl Childress [/i]Garth, I had decided to let this thread go, but you continue to complain that I am "misleading" readers.

So I thought I'd go back to one of your articles and let the readers compare what YOU wrote with how it looked after MY edit.

I took the passage from the first article I reviewed, "Fitness for Officials Part I," which you submitted on November 12, 2002, and we published November 25, same year. I picked that one because it was the start of the last series you wrote for us, other than an interview of Steve Wilson, an NFL official. You had already written 35 pieces for us, so when you submitted that piece, you were well acquainted with my editing "style."

You wrote:

When I taught beginning band in an elementary school I used to tell students that there was a magical solution to all the problems they were having with their instruments. I would guarantee them that they could overcome these difficulties in just fifteen to thirty minutes a day. The magical solution? Practice. Spending time getting their hands, fingers and lips in shape.

I wrote:

When I taught beginning band in an elementary school I always had one or two students who just weren't getting the fingerings right on the first three notes. I used to tell them there was a magical solution to that problem that would guarantee they could overcome their difficulties in just one week. The magical solution? Practice. Every day.

The aftermath of the edit is also interesting -- to me. You asked that I delete Part I (which I had alredy edited and put in the hopper) and replace it with a new Part I. I argued we should keep the old Part I and make the new piece Part II, lengthening the series by one article. (More content for me, more money for you.)

On 11/23, two days before publication, I wrote you and said:

I have re-worked from THE MAGICAL SOLUTION to the end on the first part one, henceforth referred to as Part I. I also re-worded the last paragraph of the new part I, henceforth referred to as Part II, changing reference to the following installment from the second installment to "the next installment." Got it?

You replied:

Looks fine.

Of course, in those days, I was your friend ... and Peter Osborne was the enemy. (grin)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Aug 19th, 2004 at 02:33 PM]

Originally posted by GarthB
So in your mind your change of my "I would guarantee them that they could overcome these difficulties in just fifteen to thirty minutes a day. The magical solution? Practice. Spending time getting their hands, fingers and lips in shape."

To your "I used to tell them there was a magical solution to that problem that would guarantee they could overcome their difficulties in just one week. The magical solution? Practice. Every day."

Is the same as inserting a completely new and incorrect thought and attributing it to the author as you did in Chad's article?

To quote a once trusted and honest man: Lah me.

Benham, you'll never change!

What I mean is exactly what I wrote: I used my language, written as if you were speaking.

Where in your original paragraph did you say anything like: "I always had one or two students who just weren't getting the fingerings right on the first three notes." That was completely my "invention" (read, edit).

I quote you: "In my experience [now, we know that's not correct], however, editors have not done this using the author's voice. Beginning such an insertion with the word 'I' and not identifying it as an editor's note may be legal, but it's also misleading."

I quote me: "Of course, in those days I was your friend -- and Peter Osborne was the enemy."

Good Lord, there's no way out. Just say: "Hey, ok, chalk up a point for you, Carl."

I'm sure you don't want me (and neither do the readers here) to go back through all 44 of your articles and pull out the instances where I edit by speaking in YOUR voice, adding words as if YOU were the author.

I have not one letter of complaint about any of my work on your pieces from those days.

"Of course, in those days I was your friend -- and Peter Osborne was the enemy."

[Tim C]

I think being an editor is difficult.

I think being a great editor is a rare occurance.

An editor, contrary to a post in the earlier thread, does not try to change the tone of any article. If an editor sees an article that is unacceptable in quality or even content he has the ability to simply kill the article completely.

When I write professional (actually semi-professionally) I have my style that signifies who I am. I would hope that no editor would edit my style away. Yet, I would hope that same editor would catch spelling errors, grammatical misfunctions, and just stupid sentence structure.

Editors are faced on one hand of having egomaniacal writers and also trying to figure out if the average reader can understand the piece as written.

All writers are eventually faced with editing. It is a damage to the ego to see your words changed . . . when I write I KNOW exactly what I mean to say . . . when edited I feel the piece losses both style and substance.

Editors will always "win."

Editors have a bigger picture to face than any single writer.

When I wrote in the print media I was always dealing with deadlines and editors did not always have time to pass changes back to me for approval. I saw some of my best work missing arms and legs because of the red pencil . . . but I made it through that.

Seldom does any editing make an article better. Editing does make articles more readable.

Netzines are a new media perhaps their rules are different. I have read people like Herb Caen, Tex Maule, Dan Jenkins and Frank Deford and have NEVER seen an editor's comment printed in their stories (unless that note ADDS further information about an issue).

In the specfic example of the Editor's Note in Chad's article I was confused the first time I read the note. However, when I reread the note it was clear to me (afterall it said Ed. Note) that the line was clearly attributed to Carl.

Interesting thread, sorry we lost it.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 19th, 2004 at 04:03 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C
I think being an editor is difficult.
In the specfic example of the Editor's Note in Chad's article I was confused the first time I read the note. However, when I reread the note it was clear to me (afterall it said Ed. Note) that the line was clearly attributed to Carl.

Interesting thread, sorry we lost it.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 19th, 2004 at 04:03 PM]

Tee: The first time the article appeared was the time that Garth found the error, and the Editor's Note you read had not yet been posted.

When I edited Chad's piece, I wanted to add that the umpire may call two out when there's interference with a double play possible. I paraphrased the FED rule rather than the OBR rule. It was a contextual error only: The sentence was absolutely correct for another league.

Thanks for your post ... I think. (grin)

In case you'd like to check out whether I change a writer's style, go to http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3769.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[QUOTE]Benham, you'll never change![QUOTE]


Ah....there's the rub, Carl, but I have. And you've had much to do with it. But that would take far too long to discuss, and discussions with you grow tiresome quickly.

Obviously you will never be able to admit the difference between the the two edits. And it's really is not that important to me. Ta...

Oh, and Carl...you were never a friend. You didn't know how to be one. You were like a coach who is friendly...always lobbying for something. But a friend? No, never.


[Edited by GarthB on Aug 19th, 2004 at 05:04 PM]

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[QUOTE]Benham, you'll never change!

Ah....there's the rub, Carl, but I have. And you've had much to do with it. But that would take far too long to discuss, and discussions with you grow tiresome quickly.

Obviously you will never be able to admit the difference between the the two edits. And it's really is not that important to me. Ta...

LOL, Buddy! I'll let the posts stand for themselves.

[GarthB]

I'm sorry Carl. Did I disappoint you? Would you prefer we argue for the next two days over why you continue to be wrong? What good would that do?

You seem to need closure Carl, how about this...

Good bye.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
I'm sorry Carl. Did I disappoint you? Would you prefer we argue for the next two days over why you continue to be wrong? What good would that do?

You seem to need closure Carl, how about this...

Good bye.

Interesting. I had written "adios," which is how we say 'bye down here. But I wasn't sure you wanted to concede the point. So I cut it. (another grin)

Hey, I can draw another response, I bet: Lighten up, Garth! It's only a message board. Even better: It's only a paper moon, sailing over a cardboard sky....

Hey, Guys and Gals: I had to edit this else "somebody" might catch me in another error. Mama pointed out the line is: "It's only a paper moon, sailing over a cardboard sea...." You see, it's gotta rhyme with "me," which is the last word in the quatrain.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Aug 19th, 2004 at 06:30 PM]

[TBBlue]

Tee,
Thanks for your insight from a writer's perspective. I have enjoyed your work that I have read. I made a general comment on editors from an admittedly non publishing background. Just a reader. You are correct in that (good and competent) editors don't change a writer's thoughts and points. They just make the piece more concise and gramatically correct. Therefore, more enjoyable to read. Most fall into this category. I took a shot at SI because I don't agree with their editorial slant. That is strictly a personal opinion, and unfortunately, the way I phrased my comments made it appear that I was taking a shot at all editors.

Carl, thanks for saving the latter part of this thread. I had no intention of getting an editing debate going, but you and Garth have probably helped everyone that reads this site understand what goes into the articles that are posted on the pay site. They aren't just thrown up there with no consideration of content from you or any other editors that may be responsible for content.