The Power of Words. Part 4: What does an editor do that hinders a writer?

1/21/98
Part 4: How editors hinder writers

Part 1: What can a writer do to help an editor?
Part 2: What can an editor do to help a writer?
Part 3: How reporters hinder editors

      Reporters and editors can help each other. They can also hinder each other.
      When a group of reporters and editors sat down to discuss their working relationship, they came up with a series of ideas. Three lists have already been published. This is the final one in the series. What does an editor do that hinders a writer?
       Assumes. Changes are made on the basis of what the editor assumes the writer intended or the story means.
      Issues inflexible plans for a story early on -- without fully understanding all the relevant facts.
      Sets unrealistic deadlines.
      Leans too heavily on a preconceived idea of a story.
      Fails to respond -- pro or con -- to story ideas.
      Doesn't listen to what the writer has to say in the planning of the assignment. This is a surefire way to ensure that the editor will be surprised -- and possibly disappointed -- by the finished product.
      Fails to remember his or her role.
      Tells the writer exactly what the editor wants, and in precisely what order. This lobotomizes the writer and robs the writing of its zip.
      Tinkers with the copy -- makes minute changes for no reason other than what words are pleasing to the editor.
      Disrupts rhythm for the sake of conciseness.
      Suggests what the story is or should be before the writer has done the reporting.
      Pushes for something that may not be there.
      Insists on formula leads.
      Inserts mistakes in the copy.
      Nitpicks to assert the desk's authority.
      Makes changes without explaining why. If writers are to learn from mistakes, editors must point out the mistakes.
      Compromises the integrity of the story by inserting statements or facts that may be important to the editor or the newspaper but are unnecessary and could be misleading.
      Fails to give the story one's full concentration.
      Refuses to fix a flaw or problem in the story, even when it is pointed out to them.
      Inserts paragraphs repeatedly, disrupting the story's rhythm, and creating a patchwork organization or rhythm to the story.
      Fails to provide all of the necessary information about the story to other editors. This results in editors having different expectations in what the story will say.
      Does not articulate, at the beginning, what they expect in the story.
      Does not spend enough time reading the story.
      Lacks enthusiasm. Dampens the enthusiasm of the writer.
      Replaces creativity with boilerplate.
      Starts making critical comments before the writer has even finished the story.
      Does not listen. Displays a face indicating they are bored.
      Some editors oversee work that they are unable to do. This creates unreasonable expectations and tensions.
      Does not explain decisions because the editor does "not have the time.''
      Treats all writers alike.
      Is not informed in the subject being covered by the writer.
      Insures no one has fun.
      Is too defensive.
      Does not provide feedback about the story, either positive or negative.
      Makes arbitrary changes.
      Fails to communicate. The flow of information, ideas and concepts should flow through the entire process, from conception of an idea for a story to completion and production of the story.
      Can not articulate when a problem in the story is discovered.
      The editor is co-opted and loses sight of his or her role. The editor fails to use his or her power of veto in situations where it should be exercised.
      Can not make any positive suggestions on how to improve a story. Instead, the editor can only say that the writer screwed up.
      When an editor pulls rank.
      Does not read the newspaper.

Previous editions | About The Providence Journal's Writing Program | E-mail us | Writing-related Web links | Back to main