By Jeanne Erdmann, AHCJ board member and freelance committee chair
Writers may not realize it but one of our most valuable skills is diplomacy. Sometimes story edits go smoothly, but sometimes our stories come back again and again as they go up the chain of editors, and we’re barely able to keep our cool. Or, what happens when you and the editor disagree, or the editor is just doing a bad job? Learning how and when to push back is an art form. This Lunch & Learn covered editing scenarios and gave participants strategies for dealing with difficult editors or difficult situations, including when your editor leaves the publication while the story is under edit, and when multiple editors want multiple changes.
When to push back
Complicating matters, so much of our existence depends on the relationship we develop with editors. That’s why pushing back against edits that we know would negatively impact the story can be so difficult.
Several participants shared when they chose to push back and were successful in their efforts:
-
An assigning editor left the publication during edits and the new editor wanted to cut several sources that the writer felt necessary. After going above that editor’s head, the writer was able to keep the sources.
-
Headlines that don’t reflect the story (and are worse than clickbait) represent another area worth fighting for — this would be assuming the writer gets to view the galleys before the story is published. Writers understand the need to draw eyeballs to the story, but one writer said she had the ‘fight of her career’ over a misleading headline, dug in, and got it changed.
What happens when writers don’t have the nerve or the time for these pushbacks or feel that arguing as if it’s a court case is a risk they’re not willing to take? In these cases, we have to decide whether pushing back means this would be the last story you ever write for the publication.
Sometimes writers lose these battles to the point that they request the removal of their names from the story (or at least wished they’d ask that their name be removed). One participant asked that her name be taken off the story when the editor of a small health trade took a quote from one source and attributed the quote to another source because ‘it fit the narrative better.’
Unreasonable revisions and ghosting editors
Top-tier consumer and trade publications ask for many revisions. One writer put a brake on these revisions, telling the editor that “this was beyond the scope of the assignment” and then asked for additional payment to continue. Negotiating the number of rewrites into the contract is another solution. Sometimes the story becomes inaccurate or the writer’s voice disappears. When this happens, several participants suggested making the necessary changes without asking the editor’s permission, or put it back without comment.
Even respectful editors can become overwhelmed and writers wait weeks and weeks and even months in between edits — so much so that the story loses its newsworthiness. In these cases, if repeated emails don’t work, it might be best to pick up the phone and call.
Editors aren’t always the problem. Sometimes fact checkers can be unreasonable, asking for interview transcripts. If making these available is not in the contract, it’s perfectly fine to refuse.
What makes a good editor
Fortunately, there are plenty of good editors out there and here’s what makes them good:
-
Clear and frequent communication
-
Relatively quick responses to emails
-
Collaborative, respectful edits
-
Detailed brief on what is expected in the story and editing process
-
Flexibility on deadlines and general length
-
Timely shepherding of invoice
Finally, every publication today differs on the type of paperwork needed to onboard as a contributor and get paid. This can be a major time drain, and each of us has to decide whether it’s worth writing for that publication.
