Return to Editorial Processes resources.

Editing nuts n' bolts

(Based on a lecture by Ross Collins, professor of communication, North Dakota State University)

We've talked about what editors do, and constraints they face. Now let's get more specific. Just how does one go about effectively editing a story? A lot of ways, as you can imagine. There are no rules. Many editors try to approach copy in the methodical manner by reading each story three times.

• Read the story.
• Edit it thoroughly.
• Re-read the edited story.

It's easy to skip the first and third step of this process, especially if you're under deadline pressure. However, it's important to read the story through once so that you know what it's all about. If you don't understand the purpose of a story, and manner in which it is written, you can edit poorly. It's also important to re-read the story to make sure you caught everything, and also to make sure you didn't introduce any new errors. It's embarrassing for an editor to add errors that weren't there originally, but it happens more than you might think. Editors can get pretty smug about their ability to make things better. For instance, I've submitted travel articles to an editor who changed proper names because he apparently was not aware of an unfamiliar spelling. Not that I'm so innocent myself. As a copy editor I once changed a business reporter's reference to Bismarck, the capital of North Dakota, to the "capitol of North Dakota." I felt very smart about that--except I was wrong. Luckily the business reporter caught the change in a proof sheet, changed it back, and actually didn't scold me nearly as harshly as he could have.

Similarly, avoid changing a writer's way of putting words together just because it's not the way you would have written it. Consider: is it really necessary to change, and why? Good editors don't discourage reporters by working over their copy with a blue pencil (or its digital equivalent, a cursor) without good reason. If you're concerned about the way something is written, it's best to talk to the reporter, to give the writer the opportunity to make the changes. I'm still a bit irritated at an editor many years ago who replaced many of my verbs with more mundane choices, changing, for example, "He crushed his cigarette into the ashtray and left," to "He put his cigarette out and left."

Okay, that having been said as fair warning to over-zealous copy editors, the principle remains: you can't let poorly written articles into print. Yes, an editor has a responsibility to her writers, but also a responsibility to her readers. If writing really does need work, and you don't have time to get back to the writer, don't let it go to spare his feelings. As one old editor used to tell writers who complained about his editing: "You've functioned. Now it's my turn to function."

Editors usually keep in mind a hierarchy of goals in considering a story. At the basic level is the technical things: spelling, grammar, typos, AP style. I try to consider this first. Second, I take on the lead, because if time is limited, most important part of a mass media style story is that first "nut graf." Then I consider the rest of the story, tightening awkward construction, considering clichés, missing information (What would the reader want to know?) awkward construction, potential libel.

After the first read-through, it's not a bad idea to ask yourself:

Does the story make sense? Is it complete? Should more sources be contacted? Note that a single-source story is usually inadequate, unless it's a meeting account. Do all quotes have complete attributions? Every mass-media style story needs actual quotes from sources to give it authority and realism. Each person quoted must be identified by first and last name, plus position, such as, "Irving Nern, superintendent of schools, said...."

Many editors will check spelling of every name, unless they are certain. (The telephone directory is always right. Thanks to good editors, perhaps.) Misspelled names tend to creep into stories written on deadlines. They are serious errors: people really can't forgive a publication that misspells their name in print. It is, after all, a pretty important part of who they are. Many undergraduate journalism students have experienced the old-fashioned editor turned instructor who gives "automatic F" to any paper turned in with a name misspelled. Maybe I should reinstate that good old policy.

When I must change wording, I try to be sensitive to the writer's style. Instead of just inserting words I'd use myself, I look back into the story to find words the author uses, and work with that vocabulary. I might write, "John Blow brings a plethora of orchids to brighten his office," but if he writer doesn't use the unusual word "plethora," it will look like someone else's writing. As editor, remember it's not, after all, your story.

Often not considered by beginning editors is the need to read skeptically. Stories contributed by others often contain far-fetched claims off the internet, perhaps even lies the author tries to squeak past a tired editor. Every once in a while you hear a newspaper duped by a prankster who stages a bogus wedding, or even a bogus funeral. Urban legends come and go, whether it's about the cat in the microwave oven, the hoax computer virus, or one of my favorite recent ones (favorite because I so wish it were true), a supposed think-tank listing of presidential I.Q.s starting with Franklin Roosevelt. The old editor's saying: "if your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Related to skepticism is the oft-heard admonition to new editors joining newsrooms: "To be a good editor, you have to have a dirty mind." It's easy to catch obscenities, the usual four-letter words. Some publications okay them in direct quotes. A very few even let 'em go generally, but you have to consider your reader's response. It's not that most readers are prudes. It's just that "those words" in print is so startling. A number of years ago as an intern I wrote a story for a small-town newspaper about a five-year-old who had open heart surgery. This was quite unusual back then, and worth a feature story. I interviewed the father, a crusty but lovable sort, who cast a glance at his son romping around, and said, "He's supposed to be taking it easy, the little shit." Thinking this quote captured the spirit of the story, I repeated it. Small newspapers have limited resources, and sometimes articles get published without editing. Such was my luck, or my fate. What happened? Shocked calls from readers: "I can't believe you published THAT word in MY paper." (Small-town readers often feel a real sense of ownership over their town's newspaper.)

Afterward I wished I hadn't done it. Not because I thought it was particularly obscene or inappropriate, but because it ruined the impact of my story. A reader goes along fine until he reaches that word, and then thunk! Communication ends, because while the reader can continue, he can't get out of his mind, "they actually used that word in the newspaper." So avoiding this kind of material is more than just bowing to prudery.

Less obvious is the double-entendre, expressions that have a naughty meaning to readers with "dirty minds." Any version of the verb "to come" has potential: "She said she had a wonderful time on the date, and hopes to come again soon." Old-time editors will swear this famous headline actually appeared, based on two small towns in northern Minnesota, although I've never seen the original: FERTILE GIRL DIES AT CLIMAX. Sometimes double-entendres end up on the funny page of Columbia Journalism Review. Guffaws all around, except for the embarrassed editor who made the mistake.

A note on editing for broadcast

While most principles of good editing apply to broadcast as they do to print, obviously, the constraint of spelling is less important. On the other hand, it's replaced by guides to pronunciation. Broadcast editors favor shorter sentences, written the way people talk, and shorter stories. Triple spacing the copy makes it easier to read.