 This is a request for discussion, and I really want to get perspectives other than my own, so I will try not to prejudge the issues. Any help you can give me, the better.
If one submits an Op-Ed to a newspaper or to an op-ed distributor such as TOC, the distributor or publication always prefers, and usually insists, on making its own editorial changes. Here is how I wrote the third paragraph of my recent TOC-distribute Op-Ed:
****** begin original paragraph ******
As Americans, we like to think that our government is in the business of protecting our lives. And yet, not long ago American writer Peter McWilliams was murdered, by choking on his own vomit, when his government took away the marijuana Peter grew to control the nausea of his chemotherapy for cancer. The same government has already taken steps to kill millions of other sick people, by witholding life-saving therapies that Americans could be inventing right now - if it were not for our government's nearly total ban on medical research with embryonic stem cells.
****** end original paragraph ******
Here is how it came out after TOC's edit:
****** begin edited paragraph ******
As Americans, we like to think that our government is in the business of protecting our lives and certainly would allow us to take the steps we judge as necessary to preserve our lives, health and well being. And yet, not long ago American writer Peter McWilliams died by choking on his own vomit because the government took away the marijuana that Peter grew to control the nausea of his chemotherapy treatments for cancer. Never mind that any thinking person would judge that this was a clear medical use of the drug necessary to preserve life. Thinking is not the way of most politicians. The same government has already taken steps that could cause millions of other sick people to suffer and die needlessly by preventing innovative Americans from using their minds to develop life-saving therapies. Specifically, the government has placed a near total ban on medical research with embryonic stem cells.
****** end edited paragraph ******
Now of course, I would not have written my original text as I had if I did not think that it would be perfect that way. But TOC's editor must have had reasons for the changes. I would be grateful for your insights on the following:
1. How does the edit make the paragraph better? What does it tell you about the editor's reasons for the changes?
2. Was anything lost as a result of the changes? What?
3. Do you have any suggestions on how one could make changes that would have satisfied the editor's objectives (1) in advance, while avoiding the negative effects, if any (2) of the editor's re-write?
Thanks,
Adam Reed
|
