At this point it is worth clarifying that none of the articles in this blog are exactly edited. A first draft is cut for what I want to say, I briefly re-read it 20 times, then click "Publish". Sometimes after an article publishes I go back and clearly notice where the value of an editor would have been appreciated. But generally I acquiesce to non-action, one to preserve the initial raw expressionistic value, and two, out of business-minded resource conservationism.
Editing can imply any number of textual manipulations. There is the basic spell and grammar check. But any bubbly, smiling, paperclip icon can take care of that these days. The true test arises when an evolutionary step in linguistics is occurring that the automatic systems fail. Like when it became appropriate to start a sentence with "like". Or when "google" was admitted to most copyrighted English dictionaries. (Yes, they are copyrighted, you technically need permission to copy a definition.) Your document is now riddled with dotted or squiggly red and green lines, until you "Ignore All", or simply print regardless.
Editing also implies deletion of dull, repetitive, offensive, or repeating content. This requires executive judgment of the editor, but most editors have built their careers on strong, sensible judgments, especially in conveying the most entertaining and content-rich material to their audiences. This concept also applies to the first step of deciding who gets to publish an article or not. Like designing or brainstorming, issuing a publication is based on weeding out the best material from all the possibilities. Throwing everything, literally, onto paper, putting it into context, and selecting the best stuff to move forward. The editor, then, is like an information filter, one whose cheesecloth never seems to get clogged. Or one I wouldn't mind throwing in my coffee pot for a change.
One thing editing does not appear to entail (in the news business, at least) is generation of new content. That is what the reporters and expert analysts are for. But that does not mean that editors have nothing to contribute. Instead, editors are sometimes allotted a few sentences of space below an article to remark, to the general public in italicized format, that the preceding columnist, Mr. Jim Dean, is actually a "staunch PETA activist and his opinions are not shared by his monopolistic sausage franchise." Or if running a popular news magazine, these comments can collectively be summarized in a page or so of perspective, explaining the hype or backstory behind some of the succeeding pages and authors.
I, for one, appreciate these "perspective" views. Why? Couple reasons. One, without perspective, you can't discern the freight train from a Matchbox. Second, I'm a how-it-works geek, so anytime there's a behind-the-scenes factoid, I get a little excited. And lastly, it just plain humanizes the whole experience. There is a certain kind of comfort in understanding how the initial recipients of a particular subject matter first reacted and how they ultimately reduced it to a few fact-based, size 12, type Helvetica clauses. Especially when, like too often these days, it involves tragically bad news.
But back to brighter matters, there is now one more reason I do not post-edit my posts (edit after they initially post). At least not while they are housed in electronic data farms only. And that is to afford me the pleasant opportunity to explain the process, screen out the fluff, and offer my view in a candid perspective separate from the rest.
