|
On the issue of editorial changes to texts, the usual case is that texts get edited without consultation, usually due to time constraints. Sometimes the writer will get a query about a definition or phrase that seems unclear. That can be due to an error, the writer aiming to high-brow or the editor misunderstanding something - which usually means the readers will too - so it has to be changed. With longer production publications (such as monthly journals) the writer sometimes gets a courtesy view of the first pass proof, if his editor trusts him. Any changes at that stage are shuffling commas or replacing words with apter ones - but definitely not any substantial changes in tone, subject or length. The mf has been set and no writer in his right mind is going to get a chance to introduce drastic changes. Also remember that publications have housestyle, which isn't necessarily the way the writer would put it. Even weird grammatical things get ingrained and used for consistency's sake. A writer gets to know a housestyle and adapts to save the editor's time. So, usually the writer gets no say in changes, esp. at short notice.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
What do you think about sites like The Conversation that try to bring academics to write "accessible" articles? US edition: http://theconversation.com/us UK edition: http://theconversation.com/uk AU edition: http://theconversation.com/au They brand themselves as a reinvention of journalism. Do you think there's room, or even a need, for something like that? I'm interested to know because these seemed like really promising ventures, but you dig in and the articles are mostly lazy opinion articles by substandard professors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:What do you think about sites like The Conversation that try to bring academics to write "accessible" articles? Not impressed. The writing is both stilted and patronising. I noticed some fairly obvious factual mistakes in 2 articles. Very dull. So, yes, mid-level university poop. Shame. There's room for something along these lines if the writing and editorial direction were better, but this isn't it. E: I can't see who this is aimed at. It is too dull to appeal to the general reader, too simplistic to appeal to under/postgrads, too short and opinion-ed to inform anyone searching for actual news, too lacking in original content to become a source, too uncontentious to attract other writers in search of inspiration/pilfering. As such, I think this concept (in the current form) is going to die pretty soon. Josef K. Sourdust fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:I'm trying to ask why anyone feels sympathetic to the plight of the news man, when this whole thread is news men unashamedly saying over and over what a slack rear end job they do. You have to understand that it's not always their fault, though. Get yourself a copy of Flat Earth News. Edit: I see the point was already made, but yeah. Blaming individual journalists when the system that they work under is such a pressurised one is not really fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 12:00
|
|
