Always Edit The Personality Out
I don't get it. Why publish my opinion if it's not really my opinion; if it's only my watered-down opinion? The LA Times ran my letter about the ridiculous Sandy Banks column that took up much of the reverse of the front page -- and left out a few bits. It seems to me that this isn't editing for clarity or word count. If you're not going to publish my real letter -- why publish my letter at all?
Here's what appeared in the paper.
Reflect on thisRe "Reflecting on new self-image," Column, March 7
The Times just killed the stand-alone California section, and smooshed local news in with national news. It would seem that journalistic real estate is at a premium. Yet, just on the other side of Saturday's front page -- some seriously prime real estate -- is an article by Sandy Banks on ... the new drawing to accompany her column.
Amy Alkon
Santa Monica
What is it with daily newspapers that they think they'll gain readers by sucking personality from everything? Here's the my original letter, with the bit 'o personality and end line they cut out in bold:
Re: Sandy Banks Redrawn
Your publisher killed the stand-alone California section, and smushed local news in with national news. It would seem journalistic real estate is at a premium. Yet, on Saturday, just on the other side of the front page, some seriously prime real estate, is a piece by Sandy Banks on...drumroll...the new drawing to accompany her column. Have they fired all the editors over there?
Well, apparently not the hatchet-wielding ones.
Many years ago I sent a letter to a somewhat "alternative" magazine (Mother Earth News to name names), which had a short piece wherein someone said something stupid. (A writer had no second person to use a crosscut saw so he hung a weighted sack from a tree & tied it to the other end of the saw which gave him enough pull that he could get the saw to return after a cutting pull. But he then went on to say that this "cut his work in half" - monumentally ignorant)
The editors ran my letter dropping "g"s and changing my wording so I read like some toothless Cletus.
I will hate them forever.
BlogDog at March 12, 2009 5:31 AM
Well, newspapers do like for style to be consistent throughout the paper, and from what I've seen (having had a few letters published in the local fish wrapper myself), they'll make changes that seem to make sense for this purpose even though they make no sense to the writer. However, it's also true that they want all of their reporters and columnists to be interchangeable parts, in order to make them easier to replace. For example, if a newspaper is carrying your column, they might edit it to make the writing style more generic, so that if someone else comes along with an advice column and is undercutting your rates, they can replace you with the other columnist and hopefully the readers won't notice. This sort of thing goes on particularly with the feature pages all the time. Have you ever seen stuff like this happen with your columns?
Cousin Dave at March 12, 2009 7:20 AM
I wrote a letter to the editor about the need for South Carolina to up their taxes on tobacco. I worked for hours on the letter- only to have it published sounding like a stifled, poorly written piece- with ALL THE research information I had included taken out! I will never write to The State paper again!
heather at March 12, 2009 8:25 AM
Amy,
1. Generally, I agree you're writing at the top of your game these days. (You noted that yourself recently. I thought you were terrific when I first started reading you ages ago - and yet you have improved.)
2. Those edits were reasonable.
The "drumroll" bit was arch. And the question about editors was tediously rhetorical.
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2009 8:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/12/always_edit_the.html#comment-1638101">comment from Jody TresidderJody, if they didn't like my letter, they shouldn't have published it. You're just justifying them editing the personality out.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2009 8:36 AM
>>You're just justifying them editing the personality out.
Nah. I actually preferred the edited version of your letter. Your impish tone comes across more succinctly.
I don't believe for a moment the snips were done in a painstakingly fashion to enhance your message - but they were - in my opinion - needed to tidy up those redundant "little darling" flourishes many otherwise terrific writers indulge in out of habit!
Jody Tresidder at March 12, 2009 8:48 AM
Wow, the more I read about other people's local rags, the more I appreciate mine.
It was a few years ago granted that they last published a letter of mine (also the last time I bothered to write one; don't too often) and it was placed verbatim. Given the varying styles and lengths of their letters to the editors, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that that's fairly standard with them.
Sucks, Amy. I agreed they should have either left it as was or not bothered to publish it. I love letters to the editor. It's nice to get various opinions of the people around me. See what other people are thinking and considering their points. Keeps you broadminded and all that. If they publish something dry and edited down, why bother? Then it's just their own stale voice over and over again.
Cousin Dave, Amy'd be hard to replace in that respect. She's gutsier than most in challenging her letter writers to examine their underlying motives and forthright with feedback. In other words, she's no Dear Abby/Ann Flanders or any of these "fresh" faces that seem to say nothing real and aren't even as deep as the aforementioned sisters.
The rag I praised above (to their shame) doesn't carry her but our alt weekly does.
T's Grammy at March 12, 2009 9:39 AM
I'm with Jody, I think the edits improved your letter. Nice of them to correct your spelling of 'smoosh' (sic) as well!
works for me at March 12, 2009 10:27 AM
I stopped writing lte years ago. When you submit a letter, they have the authority to edit it. (My local paper states this in the fine print.)
I don't want my thoughts edited, so I just blog about my issue instead.
On a side note, I have requested Amy's column in our biggest paper. (DDN) I sent email requests as well as written. I've even promised to *Shudder* subscribe.
Maybe we should all start a campaign w/ our local papers to get Amy's column run..
Truth at March 12, 2009 1:03 PM
forgive typing today, one arm outta commission
there's no excuse for editing Amy's letter this way.. it would have been more righteous to not print it at all.
listen, i prefer the edited version too. but so what? why do we have to pretend that Amy wasn't sarcastic? maybe being sarcastic is what gives her the insight to write the parts of the letter that they *did* think were worthwhile.
Being "arch" isn't a crime. At worst, it's mildly distasteful. it's exactly this middle-class prissiness that's made the LA Times such an obnoxious force in the community for (at least) the last twenty years. This community is a culture-clashing, earthquake-shaken, riot-scarred knife fight... And there's "our" newspaper, with tea-sipping white scoolgirl sensitivities and an extended pinky, struggling not to hurt anyone's feelings or diminish the self-esteem of the little people.
Remember-- At least until the recent layoffs, the LAT had an editorial staff of over TWELVE HUNDRED people, every one off them being trimmed as agressively as was Amy's letter. Can you IMAGINE how much distortion this has brought to their coverage of events over the years? the mind boggles.
i disagree with pepole who think this kind of ham-brained editorial policy is what's putting the newspapers out of business. the world is changing, and there's a recession beside. but it took the whole internet --a huge game-changer for human communication-- before people had better options.
The end of newsprint ISN'T comeuppance. The bastards got away with shit like this for centuriesw, and let's not forget it.
Crid (cridcrid at gmail) at March 12, 2009 1:14 PM
PS- Only once have I sent a letter to the editor of the LA Times. They published it as provided, with one change: "realtors" became "Realtors". I hadn't known that it was essentially a trademark, owned by the national organization. When it's your word, you can capitalize it any way you want.
Crid (cridcrid at gmail) at March 12, 2009 1:33 PM
My editor at Creators will remind me that "dumpster" is actually "Dumpster," but per Elmore Leonard, "When proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go."
I frequently break rules in my writing, but as I told the kids I spoke to yesterday at Uni High, you have to know the rules in order to be able to break them. If you seem literate and your work is clear and well-written, the fact that you use "if" when "whether" is actually correct...well, you get away with it. And more.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2009 3:13 PM
I used to write letters of the editor to my then local paper and had about a dozen published. The last letter attacked some parents for being bad parents. Since it was a nasty letter, I spent a lot of time working on the wording.
The newspaper butchered the letter - watering it down in places (e.g. substituting “not helpful parents” for “bad parents.”) and removing my justification one of the meanest parts. A week later someone responded to “my” letter by quoting words that I had not written. It was the last letter to the editor I wrote.
Curtis at March 12, 2009 3:44 PM
Maybe it comes from having two lawyers as nephews, but stories like Curtis' make one wonder if deliberate mis-attributions are, y'know, actionable.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 12, 2009 4:01 PM
Leave a comment