Editorial Review: Why I Hate It

Okay, so I'm not that great at posting weekly. I'm working two jobs. Give me a break.

At any rate, onto the blog topic of the week: Editorial Review.

For those who don't know, editorial review is when a reporter allows someone to read an article before it goes to print. I've been in a position where I've granted editorial review and I've also been in a position where I've denied it. If an article is not technical and a person is just worried about the way they will sound, I don't grant editorial review. If an article is very sensitive and includes a lot of technical jargon (ie, medical stuff, legal stuff) I will often allow a source to see the article before it goes to print.

But even when I grant editorial review, I really don't like to do it, and here's why: I hate being told how to do my job. I've been writing for a newspaper long enough that I know I'm not an expert, but I know I don't need non-reporters telling me what to do or how I can make my work better. I'm always up for constructive criticism (which is a lie, because come on let's be honest: no one likes to be told they could be better, even when it's true), but when a source insists that I rewrite something to its entirety...I just have a problem with that.

I'm working on a story now about a teenage girl with anorexia. She's in a residential home getting treatment for it and she's doing really, really well. It's a very emotional story, especially for her parents. I was at their home the other night for two hours talking with them about the topic. The article is growing in its length and already, it's more than 44 inches.

Side note: Newspaper articles are measure in inches. Page-length wise, that comes out to be about 4-5 pages, which is a LOT for something that's not going in a magagzin. I can't wait for my editor to tell me I have to chop it.

But anyways, the 44-inch story is going really well and I sent a draft of it to the family because I really want them to be an active part of the article. So I guess in that way, I'm setting myself up for criticism. This is something that's very sensitive, very private for them. But at the same time, I don't want them thinking that just because they suggest changes, those changes will appear in the completed article.

To be fair, never promise a source that granting editorial review means that changes will automatically be accepted. Writers, here's the truth: It's your story. Yes, you have to deal with the changes that your editors and copy editors make, but to allow a source to take control of your story is just not good journalism. It sends the message that the public has the right to manipulate the press, and that's just not the case. Most papers don't allow editorial review at all. My paper uses is extremely sparingly and my editor has told me he frowns on it.

And with good reason. I hate editorial review. It has its place in some instances, of course. There are always exceptions. In the case of this teenage girl with anorexia, I consider it an exception and I made a judgement call to include their views before the article goes to print. But generally, I will almost always deny editorial review simply because I strongly believe that writers -- especially new writers -- are often intimidated by sources and their changes.

In all honesty, this story with the anorexic girl is going very well. The family is very nice to work with and they have offered minimal comments; I think they get the point of editorial review without taking advantage of it.

At any rate, be careful with editorial review, make sure you know your paper's policy regarding editorial review, and happy writing.