…and this is a 
I get called fairly often for quick fact checks by science journalists, which is a good thing. I've also written a fair number of science pieces for publication, which get improved by good editors, which is also a good thing. But there are also ugly tales of bad editing and the difficult realities of getting science stories published, and I got one this morning that I post with the author's permission.
I just read your post on journalist integrity, which reminded me to thank you again for your help with my article on zebrafish hair cells. I'm a recent graduate of an institutional science writing program and have been struggling to land freelance jobs as a science writer. My day job is in genetics research. One of my first real writing assignments was that article where I asked for your advice. Of course, I also interviewed the author of the study discussed in my piece. He corrected me when I asked if the inner ear in humans is similar to a fish's lateral line. When I submitted the article, just shy of the 800 words I was asked to write, the editor said that the published piece had to be shortened a little. A few weeks later I checked the publication and found my article reduced to 360 words. I wasn't happy, of course, but every journalist has dealt with this. However, when I began to read the piece I didn't recognize it as anything I had written. I became worried so I did a sentence by sentence comparison. To my complete horror, out of 360 words there was only one sentence in the published piece and 3 or 4 fragments of sentences I had actually written; and the article was published with my name on it! I cannot in good faith use this article in my portfolio. Even more distressing, there in the published piece was the incorrect statement about likening the inner ear in humans to the lateral line in fish. The editor wrote it in without checking with me. Removed was any mention of neuromasts. The researcher I interviewed and I are colleagues, so what will he think when he reads this piece? I'm new at this, so whatever credibility I might have had is now lost. I don't want to burn bridges with the editor since this is all I have going for me, but I need my name removed from that article. The entire thing should be withdrawn. It's inaccurate and unethical.
I've heard a lot of stories like this. I've also talked to a fair number of science students who want to do science journalism, and they are typically idealistic and want to do right by the science…but what's the point when media priorities are all focused on short-term profit, and when the management can willfully mangle your story?
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: History Punk | July 10, 2009 10:36 AM
Just sit back and let the free market do its job. Good science writing will vanquish bad writing, or so Ron Paul and his fellow nutters tell me.
Posted by: Penny | July 10, 2009 10:38 AM
Authors of books (in the UK, at least) 'assert their moral rights' when agreeing to something being published. Said moral rights include the right not to have what you have written edited as it seems the piece referred to has been edited.
Does such a thing apply a) to journalism (I guess probably not) and b) in the USA?
Posted by: ThorSonofOdin
|
July 10, 2009 10:38 AM
Hey! If you can read this thank Nikola Tesla! Happy Birthday to him... http://www.tompainesghost.com/2009/07/happy-birthday-nikola-tesla.html
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 10, 2009 10:40 AM
Is this a problem for veteran journalists too, or just the rookies?
Posted by: randombloke | July 10, 2009 10:43 AM
Seems to me that the editor of your correspondent's publication has committed simple fraud and could probably be sued for defamation and/or loss of income due to the damage the
alteredsubstituted piece will do to your correspondent's reputation as a science writer.That said; two pieces of advice for the guy:
First, find the person interviewed and explain, then ask for their assistance in getting the article retracted.
Second, whenever your editor says they "need to cut a few words" the correct answer is: OK, I'll do it; how many did you want?
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 10, 2009 10:48 AM
Wait a moment, the lateral line cells of a fish and the vestibular hair cells of a person are not similar? I just learned that the vestibular system evolved from the lateral line organ this last semester in my fourth year neurophysiology class! Is this one of those annoying things (like the taste regions of the tongue) that somehow continues to propagate through the scientific world, or is there a nuance here that I am missing?
Posted by: JenniC | July 10, 2009 10:59 AM
Unfortunately, this doesn't just happen in science journalism. This was one of my biggest complaints about the editors of the newspaper I wrote for. They would bug me endlessly to fact check things that were obvious ("What instruments do the members of the acappella band play?") and then change things in articles to make them completely different from what I actually wrote to me *me* look like I couldn't do my own damn fact checking (10 figures based on popular game X, plus 7 new figures designed to look like actress starring in movie based on popular game X became 17 figures based on actress). Sadly, you either have to put up with this sort of thing, speak directly to the editor about your concerns, or find a paper to write for with editors who don't pull this sort of bullshit (sadly few and far between).
Posted by: JD | July 10, 2009 11:12 AM
It's time for a Marxist analysis on how capitalism is traducing creative journalism. Reducing the qualitative to its quantitative essence.
Posted by: Ranson | July 10, 2009 11:22 AM
It reminds me of something from either an old movie or book (can't remember which) between a writer and a publisher/editor.
"I quit! You're overhauls of my work have gotten out of hand!"
"Come on, I only changed one word in your opinion piece."
"Yes, but the word was 'Don't'!"
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 10, 2009 11:23 AM
The editor has time to do this? What then did he hire you for?
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 10, 2009 11:30 AM
This probably doesn't rise to the level of awfulness this journalist experienced, but among my first experiences upon graduating with a journalism degree was similarly disillusioning. I had worked very hard on an article for a conservation journal covering the impact of clear-cutting northern Minnesota forests to plant ash tree farms. To this day it remains one of the pieces of which I'm most proud. But the editor, because my name was not known to anyone, decided to give an ecologist the byline even though he was only one of my sources for the information in the article, and had nothing to do with actually writing it. I suppose I should feel flattered that my writing was considered expert enough to be attributed to an actual expert, but what I actually felt was really pissed off and used. Valuable lesson for a young journalist, though.
Posted by: jemand | July 10, 2009 11:32 AM
Damn. I edited and published a small magazine by and for homeschooled students when I was in eight grade and got yelled at for changing the TITLE of a piece, when I hadn't changed even a single punctuation mark in the body of the story.
Posted by: Confuseddave
|
July 10, 2009 11:45 AM
Penny@2 - it most certainly does happen in journalism in the UK. I did a science communication course with a freelance journalist who nearly had his entire science credibility destroyed when almost exactly this happened (in his case, sloppy editing in paring the story down meant that a key statement was changed to have the opposite meaning). His source sent out emails to everyone he knew warning them not to be interviewed by him. Luckily, he managed to smooth everything out eventually. As someone else commented, the only thing you can really do in that situation is get in contact with your source and explain your position.
You've got to understand the time pressure on editors to make the story fit into the physical space that a paper has. There simply isn't time to be to-ing and fro-ing and umm-ing and ahh-ing about it. And if a journalist tried to assert that kind of protectiveness over their writing (from the editors point of view: being a dick about it) they'd very quickly find their stories weren't welcome at all. And my impression (again, from talking to science journalists) is that journalism is all about who you know - if word gets out that you're being a prima donna with your work (threatening to sue your boss for fraud? Are you serious?) you will probably find it hard to get work as a journalist at all.
It's an issue with how papers are put together. And with both sales and advertising revenues falling, expect the problem to get worse and worse. This sounds like an extreme case, but a long way from unusual.
Posted by: B. Scott Andersen | July 10, 2009 11:59 AM
I understand completely. I wrote a piece in 1981 for a magazine that was an evenhanded comparison between two programming languages in an educational setting. The editor change the title, changed the story to have a particular slant, reduced the piece in size, and rendered it unrecognizable. I wrote to the editor to complain. My letter was hacked up, published in the letters to the editor section (making me look like a grumpy fool), and the editor's response was trite and condescending.
I was so disgusted with the process that I didn't publish for many years.
The only thing I can suggest is that it is a war of attrition. Start a blog where YOU are the editor. Keep submitting things for publication. Accept that in this war you will have battles lost and battles won. For those really interested in the WHOLE story they can find your blog, unedited and unmangled. As with so many things, the best disinfectant is sunshine. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people saw you as thoughtful and knowledgeable in your blog and were forced to ask, "what happened in this magazine piece?" Many (enlightened) readers will deduce the work of a bad editor.
Good luck. I look forward to seeing your work.
-- Scott
Posted by: Interrobang | July 10, 2009 12:07 PM
My publisher is the secular equivalent of a saint. He's never hacked up anything I've written, and usually his criticisms have a lot of merit. The one time where we had a serious disagreement about content, time proved me right, and he's admitted it, so now he's even more likely to trust my editorial judgement.
Newspapers, though -- I've never been so badly misquoted, and if I ever meet the guy who did that to me, I'm going to give him a cosmetic malocclusion.
Posted by: Bevans | July 10, 2009 12:17 PM
Why would the editor change that part about the lateral line, and to something that's just wrong? That sort of thing isn't exactly common knowledge...
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2009 12:21 PM
This is one of those things that will probably change over the next few years. Online media are not constrained for space, but the writing style needs to be a bit different and the online versions of various news papers are only just starting to realise this. For example, a full length article of several thousand words will still need a ~200 word summary that both accurately reflects the article without giving away so much that no one reads the rest.
I personally love the writing process and the editors I work with do a great job. I have only had one experience that was annoying: the title of the piece ended up not reflecting the content.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 10, 2009 12:21 PM
A large part of the problem here is that word choice in science writing is important. Hell, a lot of the time, word choice is critical. The writers are not actual scientists (they certainly almost never have enough training in that specific subject to understand the nuanced minefield that they're typing through), and the editors are even less frequently actual scientists*. An editor, with the best of intentions, can spend some time cutting words and fuck things up, simply by virtue of the fact that they don't understand the importance of, say, a particular phrase. The phrase sounds unweildy (probably is...), gets altered or cut, and bang, the whole piece is actually different. Probably only slightly different, but in science writing slightly can be the ballgame.
Given all of the realities in publishing that various commenters herein have touched on, it's not a problem that's likely to get better. But this is where actual scientists blogging about peer-reviewed work in their fields can play an important role. Granted, it will only provide aid and comfort to those who are curious enough to follow up on the newspaper article or whatever that alerted them to the research in the first place, but it's far better than if the blog post weren't there.
*And sorry, but having an earth science BS from 20 years prior won't really provide you with enough understanding to easily navigate the nuances involved in editing a piece about a Geology article on volcanology or climate change or whatever. It just won't.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 12:36 PM
Funny - I was just reading this older piece recently:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/john_mashey_what_to_do_about_p.php
Posted by: Josh
|
July 10, 2009 12:47 PM
Interestingly, something just happened to me that's relevant to comment#18. I just got some stuff back from a copy editor (she's GREAT, but has a background in English rather than science) and proposed changing some text from:
to
The change from "-" to "and" is trivial, but would change the meaning.
Posted by: Matthew Herper | July 10, 2009 12:51 PM
I've been a journalist for ten years. Being rewritten is part of the job sometimes. Most great pieces of journalism (name your favorite New Yorker article) went through the editing gauntlet. And sometimes stories are made better over the writer's protests.
What does surprise me is that the editor in this tale didn't show the shortened article to the author, if only to catch factual errors. But journalists get edited, and the world is probably a better place for it.
Best,
Matt Herper
Forbes
Posted by: kev_s
|
July 10, 2009 12:51 PM
Could this have been a test by the editor to see if the young journalist would stand up and fight for what he/she originally wrote?
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 10, 2009 12:54 PM
Back about 25 years ago I was talking to a science reporter at one of the conferences, one of the good guys who wrote for the NYT or WaPo, I forget now. He mentioned that they typically got the press release to work with in the morning at say 9am and had to have their finished 900 words done by 2pm. This could be any science topic, one they know or one they don't, and that's all the time they get for research, learning enough to not goof it up, getting quotes, etc.
That's not easy.
Posted by: shishinden | July 10, 2009 12:57 PM
As an ex-editor, I frequently had to chop and change articles and reviews due to concerns of available space or simple coherence. It should be a given that, no matter the extent of the excision, the import and intent of the original is preserved. (Unless one works for the Murdoch press.) It's as close to an ethical sine qua non as the profession possesses.
Writers should feel able to raise these issues with the editorial staff. I never canned anybody for questioning my treatment of their work. Just swore at them a lot.
If you should require a template for complaints re: the butchering of your prose, might I suggest Giles Coren of the Times:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/mediamonkey
Posted by: Dave | July 10, 2009 1:00 PM
I went to school for Photojournalism but haven't pursued it as a career because of the lack of integrity in the industry.
They don't want good stories, they just want to make a quick buck.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 10, 2009 1:00 PM
That's an understatement.
Posted by: Matthew Herper | July 10, 2009 1:00 PM
I've been a journalist for ten years. Being rewritten is part of the job sometimes. Most great pieces of journalism (name your favorite New Yorker article) suffered the same indignities. Sometimes that's how they got great.
What does surprise me is that the editor in this tale didn't show the shortened article to the author, if only to catch factual errors. But journalists get edited. Period.
Best,
Matt Herper
Forbes
Posted by: shishinden | July 10, 2009 1:00 PM
As an ex-editor, I frequently had to chop and change articles and reviews due to concerns of available space or simple coherence. It should be a given that, no matter the extent of the excision, the import and intent of the original is preserved. (Unless one works for the Murdoch press.) It's as close to an ethical sine qua non as the profession possesses.
Writers should feel able to raise these issues with the editorial staff. I never canned anybody for questioning my treatment of their work. Just swore at them a lot.
If you should require a template for complaints re: the butchering of your prose, might I suggest Giles Coren of the Times:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/mediamonkey
Posted by: shishinden | July 10, 2009 1:05 PM
Oh joy, a double post. Sorry! It may explain the EX-editor title.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 10, 2009 1:17 PM
I had no idea this sort of thing happened to this degree. I get pissed off when my letters to the editor of the local paper get changed even the slightest bit!
I agree that the author should demand a retraction and apology from the editor of the publication. We scientists are fighting enough battles from without without having to fight them from within.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 10, 2009 1:29 PM
The only time I wrote a public piece, it was already very short -- about 2 paragraphs. The editor asked if she could "make some small changes" and I unwarily said yes. I would never do that again. When it hit print it was unrecogniseable to me.
I did the best I could, and got my name pulled from it. But it kind of soured me on the whole business.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 10, 2009 1:52 PM
Josh:
Whether the change was appropriate sort of depends on what your ellipsis stands for. If it's between, then your editor's change was not only correct but necessary: "...between 125 to [in my shop, we don't use a hyphen to indicate "to," for fear it will be confused with a minus-sign] 135 million years old..." would be an error, and the and still indicates a range, rather than two discrete values, when it's paired with between. If, OTOH, the ellipsis stands for from, then to is required and and would be an error. (If the ellipsis stands for something else entirely, of course, all bets are off.) In either of these cases, the distinction is one of grammar, rather than one of technical import, so your editor's English background is precisely relevant.
My own background is in English (BA, U. of Houston, 1981; MA SUNY-Binghamton, 1984), but I also acquired a couple years of science and math credits as an Engineering student before switching to English, and I have an interdisciplinary technical degree (MS in Space Studies, U. of N. Dakota, 2003) just for fun. I work as a Sr. Technical Writer, which, despite the title, is really more of an editing position than a writing one. In my line of work — publishing technical proposals and contract reports, which is admittedly notably different from either journalism or trade book publishing — the author always gets the final look/final say. When I want to make a change that has even a small risk of changing the technical meaning, I make sure the author reviews that change. If suspect the review won't happen or won't be thorough (i.e., because the deadline for final delivery is too near), I just won't make the change, borrowing from medicine the imperative to "first, do no harm," and assuming that technical accuracy is more important than grammatical goodness.
That said, the technical types I work with often think purely syntactical matters have semantic implications that they really don't.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 10, 2009 1:53 PM
No, time won't cure the problem. It's institutional ignorance compounded by arrogance of editors.
A story (you knew that was coming). I worked for a U.S. senator who was persuaded by the Japanese community in his state to sponsor a bill to explore whether the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II was legal or appropriate, adn the effects of the internments. I sent out the press release, "Sen. X sponsors Japanese-American internment probe." (Hey, I was younger, and the word "probe" was still okay in headlines.)
The Provo Daily Herald printed the release almost verbatim, but with a headline, "X sponsors Japanese burial probe."
I laughed. I checked the print copy, and there was no typographical error turning "internment" into "interment," which would have justified the headline.
I sent a note to the copy desk of the paper about the error, and forgot about it until, a few weeks later, there was a bill sent to committee markup. "Committee approves bill to study Japanese-American internment."
Sure enough, the same paper headlined it "X's committee approves bill to study Japanese burial."
By Brigham Young and Parley Pratt! the copy desk at the Provo Daily Herald would not kowtow to those poobahs in Washington! The "burial probe" phrase showed up in every headline as the bill progressed, was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the president.
Someday I expect to run into an older citizen of Provo, Utah, who will in the course of conversation ask me if I know anything about that weird study done once on Japanese burials.
Don't get me going on what the faculty did to my student newspaper editorial on rock music that quoted Cole Porter, "Birds do it/Bees do it/even educated fleas do it/Let's do it/Let's fall in love." It became a line about a coal mine helper singing a rock 'n roll ode to teenage sex.
You know the terrible thing? Most of those people thought they were working hard to get it right.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 10, 2009 2:02 PM
oh wow, didn't know it was that bad. this kind of thing makes me think the slow demise of professional news-publishing might not be a bad thing at all.
and then I remember that some stories can't really be discovered by the hobby-blogger; or even the professional blogger. we do need at least some investigative journalists to continue doing what they're supposed to be doing: investigating.
Posted by: Hank | July 10, 2009 2:07 PM
Excellent post. I've said for a while that the angrier subset of scientists regarding science journalism are targeting the wrong group; science journalists care and editors care too ... they just care about different things.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 10, 2009 2:07 PM
Bill--yeah. Looking back at it, it wasn't nearly the cool example of what I was talking about in #18 that I thought it was. Dammit. Her edits came in immediately after I wrote #18 and I saw that proposed change and thought "ahh...what a great example of what I meant!" Then I went and fired that comment off, violating the rule I try to live by when commenting here: think your comment through before sending it.
Posted by: JiminKy | July 10, 2009 2:29 PM
As a newspaper reporter for nearly a decade, I can tell you that such hatchet jobs do happen to experienced writers as well – but less often, because they've generally risen to a spot where they've got good editors, or at least know which editors to watch out for.
I've had an editor frankly fabricate a definition for a word she didn't recognize (a very common word, by the way), and insert the bogus definition in a story without bothering to actually look it up or ask anyone else. There's little remedy for it, other than building enough of a personal reputation with sources and frequent readers that they will accept your explanation, and to be unafraid to ask to review your copy prior to publication.
In my estimation, a good editor will check with the writer about any substantive change. In technical pieces, that includes even minor wording changes, except in sentences that don't directly convey technical facts. An editor who gets offended at an additional check for accuracy is an editor to avoid.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 10, 2009 2:54 PM
This is a problem across multiple print media, and I have to agree with Ed D (#33) that time is compounding the problem.
During an online book discussion I was hosting as part of a writers' group, I commented on how distracting it was what a writer had constantly made the "loose"/"lose" cock-up. I asked if she'd even read the fucking galleys (the final "look" of a piece before it gets printed as a book). The thing is, even then, if the author finds a mistake, she can mark it up and make the publisher get it right before going to the presses.
Or that's how it's supposed to work.
Sure enough, the author was a lurker at that site who found the logged and posted chat and my comment. I got an email from her that she did send back correct galleys, but her indie publisher was too stupid to get things right at print time.
I later met her at a book convention, and she couldn't wait to tell me that one of the big names had signed her. I got an advance copy of her first book with them with a cute inscription scribbled inside that maybe she'd overcome her loose/lose confusion at last.
Posted by: Ed Degaz | July 10, 2009 3:20 PM
Word count? The article needs to be 360 words? How archaic.
Gawd, print media is soooo dead.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
July 10, 2009 4:01 PM
Yikes.. Would seriously think on trying to get a contract, if I was going to write such a thing, that explicitly stated, "The author has a right to post the original, unedited, article on their blog, after the edited version has gone to print.", just to a) cover my own ass, b) save my reputation from total fools, and c) give people a way to find what the frak I actually *did* say.
These kinds of mistakes are horrible, especially in a world where half the so called "journalists", especially on TV news, and papers with an agenda, seem to be incompetent hacks themselves, and all their editors can manage is to make things even worse.
Posted by: Nicholas | July 10, 2009 4:14 PM
I'm an editor and I chop authors all the time. One thing many scientists do is that they do not write for the audience of the publication. I get massive manuscripts when I ask for short concise articles for lay readers. Then, the scientists complain when I edit it down to the specifications I provided (I am aware you were not informed of article final specs). But, one thing we do not do is go to press without the article contributor approving the final text. Rewriting is common, but that is wrong. Of course, sometimes I send things to scientists and then never hear from them again. PZ,I'm looking at you.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | July 10, 2009 4:19 PM
This is not a new problem.
Anyone noticed how, in Edgar Rice Burroughs' books, he seems to oscillate between atheist and religious nutjob? In the Foreword to Beyond the Farthest Star (1941), he writes:
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 10, 2009 4:34 PM
@Mozglubov #6:
No, you're right--the hair cells themselves are very similar indeed--same basic electrophysiology, structure, molecular players, all that stuff. I haven't read the kid's article, obviously, but based on his letter to PZ I would say that indeed "the human ear is similar to the fish's lateral line" is an incorrect statement because it sounds like a structural/functional comparison that is false. You'd have to specify that you were talking about hair cells, and then probably differentiate between auditory and vestibular functions to make a fair comparison.
Posted by: inkadu | July 10, 2009 4:43 PM
Why do people go to school for journalism? I would think any curriculum that encouraged good writing combined with content knowledge (science) and 2-3 years experience at a local paper would be all one would need for a solid professional start.
Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2009 4:54 PM
Something similar happened to me on one of my first stories as a science journalist. I interviewed the subject in person, got background detail from the public information officer of the institution involved in the story, and wrote up my article. What appeared in print was a far cry from what I had submitted to my editor. Upon inquiry, I was told that my story had been "flat" and needed more "atmosphere," so the editor had undertaken a rewrite that added some color to the subject's environment. That's understandable, especially since I was a brand-new writer -- except that all of the added details were spurious. The editor just made them up. The next time I saw the public info officer, she told me that my story "wasn't very accurate." I apologized and told her it had been changed in rewrite. She was not entirely mollified.
Posted by: Orson Zedd
|
July 10, 2009 4:58 PM
Here's a thought. Someone should start a website styled like popular media dedicated to science first. Maybe there's already something like that?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 10, 2009 5:48 PM
Actually, this is not fraud - when you submit your work to be edited, the reasonable assumption is that the finished work will still represent your views. If, when you attempt to have the work corrected or retraced the publication refuses to do so, then it can be called fraud because it is at that time the publication is willfully misrepresenting your work and using your name without permission.
So, this poor fellow needs to contact the publisher and request that the article either be corrected or retracted; it would help to have the colleague he was speaking with join in on this. If the publisher refuses, sue their little asses off.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 10, 2009 5:57 PM
Orson, you can check out:
http://www.sciencenews.org/
and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
Posted by: Sili
|
July 10, 2009 6:06 PM
Why the fuck ask for 800 words if there's only room for 360? Wouldn't it have made more sense to ask for that in the first place then?
Or, god forbid, ask people to pare down their articles beforehand - just in case.
I understand the need for editors, and I have no doubt that they're a general good, but how can such a hatchetjob be justified? I don't think anyone means to attack editors as a group, but the wankers among them really need to be called out.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 10, 2009 6:12 PM
my dad (a journalist/editor/PR person/whatever it is that he does now) would agree. when he was still working for newspapers, he liked to say that the only useful skill journalism majors learn is typing. He preferred his reporters with degrees in economics, social sciences, etc.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2009 6:58 PM
History Punk writes:
Just sit back and let the free market do its job. Good science writing will vanquish bad writing, or so Ron Paul and his fellow nutters tell me.
Well, that is the evolutionary model. What Paul and his fellow nutters forget to tell you is that there are a lot of casualties and pain in the process, and it can take millions of years.
Posted by: Dr P | July 10, 2009 7:00 PM
I've left websites for doing that same thing to my pieces. Editing for punctuation or usage is one thing, or length, though context is important, but making it more sensational is another thing altogether and very smarmy for science, particularly medicine and controversial topics. I've also fought with editors over my pieces not being dumbed down enough for a general audience, which is who they make their money from. It's sad - it's not really possible to write for intelligent people any more, not within the established structure. That's why blogs are surpassing journalism sites.
Posted by: Sojournposse | July 10, 2009 8:00 PM
I feel sorry for this young writer. I am a journalist, and yes, I have experienced this. It gets worse when you get someone who has no science and technology background 'rearranging' your piece.
My advice to the young journalist: be courageous. Tell the editor what you're not happy with. But be polite. Best to iron this out at an early stage. Sure it feels awkward but your story must be accurate. I am sure one day you will be able to write a piece that is technical but yet so easy to understand that any editor will find it a pleasure to edit. Maybe the editor was a bit too coy to admit that he didn't understand your story.
Posted by: mediajackal | July 10, 2009 9:17 PM
Gad, I hate it when a moronic -- or rookie, and sometimes there's little difference -- editor mucks things up. Fortunately, not all editors are morons or rookies.
What to do: Call the editor; demand he/she/it print a retraction. Never EVER work for that editor again.
Take your source out for a nice lunch and apologize profusely. It wouldn't hurt to have the source contact the editor and ask WTF.
Cutting an 800-word article to 360 words is reckless and sloppy. And some people in my industry wonder why we're losing credibility.
The writer should not be discouraged. Consider it a learning experience -- unpleasant, icky, frustrating though it may be.
Don't give up. We need more reporters who have pride in their work.
Posted by: Robyn | July 10, 2009 9:20 PM
Time to start a blog!
Posted by: RC | July 10, 2009 9:27 PM
It happens to the best of us. A classic was one of my fellow lab rats, who published a paper on how geological substrates correlate to genetic population structure in geckos. She then interviewed for a popular science article, which then had the headline "Neighbors give up Sex"! Not that she mentioned sex once...
Posted by: RC | July 10, 2009 9:31 PM
The NY Times published (yesterday) an interesting survey on the discord between scientists and the American public. Have they got good timing or what? Check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/science/10survey.html?hpw
Posted by: chgo_liz
|
July 11, 2009 12:07 AM
I don't think it has much to do with word count, at least not always. I've had exactly this sort of thing happen several times despite written guarantees that final copy would be sent to me for approval before printing (hah!): the resultant articles were slightly LONGER rather than shorter, as well as being almost entirely not my work anymore. I particularly love when the facts get turned around to say the opposite of what was originally said. Gotta love "journalism" these days.
Posted by: tim harris | July 11, 2009 12:21 AM
When I was an editor at a newspaper in Japan, I never changed anything, except for obvious grammatical or spelling mistakes, without consulting the writer; if there was a problem, or if there was a better way of saying something, I would always consult the writer. It is a matter of courtesy. In my experience (I am British), American editors are far more likely to change things without consultation - I think it may be something taught in journalism school in the USA: the thinking seems to be that editors, in order to show they are earning their keep, have to muck about with other people's writing. There is also the 'dog and lamp-post' syndrome: many editors cannot bear to pass by a well-written and accurate article without lifting their legs and pissing all over it: 'Killjoy was here!'
Posted by: tim harris | July 11, 2009 12:23 AM
When I was an editor at a newspaper in Japan, I never changed anything, except for obvious grammatical or spelling mistakes, without consulting the writer; if there was a problem, or if there was a better way of saying something, I would always consult the writer. It is a matter of courtesy. In my experience (I am British), American editors are far more likely to change things without consultation - I think it may be something taught in journalism school in the USA: the thinking seems to be that editors, in order to show they are earning their keep, have to muck about with other people's writing. There is also the 'dog and lamp-post' syndrome: many editors cannot bear to pass by a well-written and accurate article without lifting their legs and pissing all over it: 'Killjoy was here!'
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 11, 2009 1:11 AM
Helped edit a pair of books for the late Gary Gygax. Gary told me, regarding one tome, that as an editor I was entirely within my rights to mangle deathless prose. :)
Those editors who alter prose out of ignorance are bad enough. Much worse are those who alter prose out of malice. Political reporting appears to be particularly bad in this regard. Along with others above I recommend your correspondent establish his own blog and publish his original work there. I also recommend dropping the periodical in question, because that editor will ruin his work again and again. Just because it means a paycheck is no reason to tolerate the abuse. You have to flip burgers to put food on the table, you flip burgers; but never compromise on quality in your reporting.
Posted by: Maus | July 11, 2009 3:09 AM
"Just sit back and let the free market do its job. Good science writing will vanquish bad writing, or so Ron Paul and his fellow nutters tell me."
The free market of ideas is a success! The internet is filled with nothing but good information ;)
Posted by: Kagehi
|
July 11, 2009 4:29 AM
Actually, its not. That is the "Lemarkian" model. The idea that journalism will progress towards the goal of getting *better*, as a natural consequence of Libertarian practice. The problem is, there is no reason for it to a) evolve towards that goal, b) rid itself of things that are flawed, but otherwise fail to entirely destroy journalism, or c) only acquire "good" traits, from our perspective, if those traits that we *don't want* actually help it survive (such as sensationalism, political spin, underestimating the audience, to make it more accessible to even idiots, etc.)
Posted by: Stronger Now | July 11, 2009 7:03 AM
I wrote a three page essay for my Eng. 111 class on how media hype distorts science. I hoped it would have fixed the problem once and for all.
Well. Back to the trenches.
Posted by: Joseph | July 11, 2009 7:19 AM
A question -
Are science editors hired for their literary skill, or are they random advertising hacks pulled in by bureaucrats to make science magazine profits rise?
Posted by: Douchey France | July 11, 2009 7:46 AM
This young science writer is in a terrible position if he has an editor who can mangle his work without running changes past him. This simply is not done at respectable publications. If he maintains this relationship he will be continually disappointed. He needs to have a talk with him, and if the editorial policy isn't fixed, he should move on.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 11, 2009 8:41 AM
@Jennifer #43
Thanks for the response... I was beginning to wonder if my comment was invisible.
I suppose that makes sense... when looking at the lateral line organ and the vestibular hair cells, they certainly looked similar in structure and function. You are correct, though, that one does have to be careful about proper wording, and I'm not sure what this specific story ended up saying.
Posted by: AnonCowherd | July 11, 2009 12:59 PM
I've been victimized on both sides of the journalistic fence.
I was a student intern at one newspaper, sent out to cover a story. It was just a simple fluff piece about a sports celebrity at the opening of a local bar.
I hand it in and the next day it gets run with my photo and a bunch of made up crap claiming that the bar is getting half a dozen widescreen TVs in (this was in 91, imagine the cost) in time for the hockey playoffs. Needless to say the owner of the bar was angry with me, and I still don't know who changed it.
But the bar owner would be pleased, because a few months later I was in another city looking for work, and had to use social assistance for a short period of time. A friend of mine left home due to religious tensions in the home and stayed with me for a couple of weeks. To make him come home his mom called everyone she could think of claiming that we were running some big welfare scam. I ended up missing out on a job (albeit a crappy one) from her harassment. Not long after I get back to the town I had left, I got a call from a reporter. He asked me about her claims, and I nullified them, but offered to tell him what kind of corruption and sneakiness I did see while in the system. Things like the owners of downtown businesses collecting welfare cheques, etc.
While I talked to him on the phone there were seven other people in the room listening and playing games on the Genesis (yes, I'm dating myself once again).
The next day the story ran, including the picture he had a local photog take for him and send to his city. It absolutely destroyed me. He attributed everything I said to actions I did, and basically painted myself and my friend out to be experienced con men. My family saw it and were ready to kill me. I showed it to my friends who were there when I gave the interview and they were just as pissed as I was.
I should have gone to a lawyer, but what's a broke 19 year old going to do.
I don't know if it was the reporter or the editor that changed the story, but it made my life hell for some time after.
Never, EVER talk to a journalist. And if you have any integrity, don't plan to be one unless you get final say on edits. (good luck with that.)
Posted by: SkeptoToad | July 11, 2009 2:15 PM
Having worked for a newspaper most of my adult life, I am aware that reporters and editors often either get things wrong or deliberately misrepresent the people they interview. While inaccuracy is many times the result of overworked reporters trying to make a deadline on a subject that they know next to nothing about, there is no excuse for intentionally altering facts or misleading readers.
I have always considered it a privilege and an honor to be able to serve the public interest in the unique way that journalists can, and I have tried since the beginning to maintain the highest ethical standards I am capable of. It is difficult in the face of people that I dislike intensely or extremely unpleasant situations, but I managed for over 20 years without getting sued for libel, and only received one death threat. I have always written about and photographed people as if I were going to see them the next day, and that turned out to be the case a fair number of times.
Journalists are often maligned for blatant sensationalism, erroneous facts, garbled quotes, and embarrassing photos and video, but think about where we would be without them. With major newspapers vanishing rapidly and the vapidity of modern television newscasting, I can only wonder where we will get our actual news in the near future. And the lowest-paid major of any college grad? Journalism.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 11, 2009 4:34 PM
Okay, here is some advice from a copy editor / very occasional journalist, because this happens in all fields of journalism:
Find out who the copy editor was, and shit on them from a dizzying height. Point out that the article that went through is wrong, and demand a correction.
This is not something that will annoy your editor, editors has been around long enough to have had it happen to them. That you care about your work is actually a plus - and shows integrity, which is a sought after trait in journalists.
Recognise that the copy editor was supposed to consult with you on the article for any major changes. The copy editor by not doing this didn't do his or her job.
And don't let them snow you under claiming that they are "too busy for this", it is part of the job, it generally takes a quick phone call to the journalist at hand, and if it is print, they had the damn time.
Posted by: Science journo | July 12, 2009 5:10 AM
I've been a science journalist for more than a decade now, and have run into this problem a number of times--not just editors who change things, but editors who argue about correcting errors they have introduced into my copy. There are one or two scientists out there who are unlikely to talk to me ever again thanks to editorial cock-ups (including headline writing) that had absolutely nothing to do with me.
I don't think scientists realize how little power writers have. A writer will normally have to sign a contact with a publisher stating that the publisher has the right to edit copy as it sees fit. No contract, no writing commission. You can argue, but the editor's decision is final. So if you, a scientist, are unhappy with a story about your work, do complain. But try to find out where the errors occurred before you castigate the journalist who interviewed you.
Having said all that, my overall experience with editors has been good. I write for reputable publications that care about getting things right. Most journalists and editors do. It would be a shame if scientists got scared away from talking to journalists--a paper in the journal Science last year indicated that the majority of researchers were satisfied with their interactions with the media : http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08071053
Posted by: Llelldorin | July 12, 2009 11:53 AM
Why the fuck ask for 800 words if there's only room for 360? Wouldn't it have made more sense to ask for that in the first place then?
Guessing from a few years working as a magazine editor? The story was probably abruptly dropped from a full-page to a half-page (probably to fix a layout issue).
Doing near-complete rewrites like this is part of the job of a competent editor. A good one can do it smoothly enough that the final product still reflects the "voice" of the original submission, even with most of the original wording changed. That's hard to do, though, and when an editor fails (as I certainly did from time to time), factual errors creep in. If you have time, you get approval from the original author for the changed wording, but if the layout problem appeared within a day or two of the ship date, you simply don't have time.
Posted by: Neil B ♪ | July 13, 2009 11:28 AM
I think the climatology people may have the worst problem with this right now, am I right? I mean, with those lists, cites and quotes used or abused by AGW deniers etc.
Posted by: kikilarue | July 13, 2009 1:07 PM
Sorry to go off-topic, but is there any reason to assume the letter's author is male?
Posted by: Lila | July 13, 2009 1:14 PM
@ Penny:
'Moral rights,' in my understanding, are a concept out of European law that did not enter the British legal system until after the American Revolution. While it may have seeped in to English law over time, the US has only very recently (and in my opinion sadly for copyright law and the public good) been adopting the trappings (not the reasoning) of "moral rights." If it goes much further here, it could become a constitutional issue, since our constitution asserts that intellectual property rights are monopolies granted by a government for a limited time to promote social progress, not a moral right asserted by the author over his/her/zir work
Posted by: Lila | July 13, 2009 1:16 PM
@ Penny:
'Moral rights,' in my understanding, are a concept out of European law that did not enter the British legal system until after the American Revolution. While it may have seeped in to English law over time, the US has only very recently (and in my opinion sadly for copyright law and the public good) been adopting the trappings (not the reasoning) of "moral rights." If it goes much further here, it could become a constitutional issue, since our constitution asserts that intellectual property rights are monopolies granted by a government for a limited time to promote social progress, not a moral right asserted by the author over his/her/zir work
Posted by: Doug the Primate | July 14, 2009 4:49 PM
Re #59 "dog and lamp post" metaphor.
I used to write By-laws for the Council of my Regional Municipality. I always made sure that we had the required legal authority to enact, got my legal ducks in order, included a brief explanatory paragraph in the preamble so that anyone of our citizenry would understand the purpose, need, and historical context of the By-law, inserted a reference to the relevant Report or Study that would provide the info background to the By-law, for reference and historical purposes (I'm an Archivist), and always sent the draft off to the Director of the relevant Department (most frequently Engineering) for technical review. I made any changes the Department required (usually none), then fired the thing up to the CAO/Clerk for his final review. I was content with this practice, because none of the Councillors was a technical specialist in either the relevant law or the subject matter of the By-law, but the Departments were, at least of the latter. The CAO/Clerk was like the Councillors, and, like them, a political tactitian. Fine with me, because I am not, and I liked to have several sets of eyes on what are, after all, among the most important legal documents of a municipality, in that they are subject to judicial review. It was a rare By-law that came back from the CAO/Clerk marked "OK". Most of the time there was some editing, in his usual red pen. Most of the time these changes were stylistic that did not change the meaning of the text. Sometimes these were actual improvements, other times they mangled my original rhetorical flow to no purposeful effect, typically they were simply stylistic differences that didn't matter a hill of beans. He never messed with my ducks, but for twice when he excised the explanatory paragraphs because I had told the truth too plainly. Too bad, so sad. Mostly I recognized his amendments as his demonstration that he was "the big bear", able to claw higher on the tree than I. Editorial mismanagement can accur in a variety of settings.