The Corrections (Does Jonathan Franzen have these problems?)

Does this sound familiar, either to writers or editors?

A young writer recently complained that when he handed in copy, the material returned to him resembled nothing like what he turned in.

His complaint was that the finished stories did indeed read tighter and flowed easier -- but that he was missing a chance to help with the changes, and not getting any feedback.

Here's what I'd say:

If your copy is being rearranged big time, a couple things: First, count yourself blessed to still be writing for them. If you still are, that means you've at least got the basic research in and they're willing to rework -- and you still have the income source. Sometimes if there's a lot that needs done, they'll write the writer off. I had a publisher who insisted on it.

Second, look at what they did, sentence by sentence. Next time you think you're done, put it to that test they used, and do those things to it. The other thing the editor could have done is said to you (irritated or not): "This is completely inside out and unacceptable. It needs this, this, and this. Fix it." For some mags, that's their policy.

Either they didn't have time for that, or it's not their policy, or they didn't think you could do it on your own, or they don't know you well enough to know you could on their short deadline, or they have someone who is free to fix things up and they're okay with it. They may know there's a learning curve to writing their style and they're willing to cut you some slack.

One thing you might do is ask, politely, proactively, positively: "I noticed there were some changes made to my story. Can we go over them so I'll have a better idea for my next piece of what you're looking for?" (which beats "How dare you change my story!" cold ...)

What makes a paper a 'rag'?

So what makes a paper a rag? My suspicion is that it's the same thing that makes a writer a 'hack.'

I edit a weekly newspaper and I work hard to hit some pretty high quality standards. For me, that means no wire copy, for one thing. Regardless of how well-written it is and how many sources the writer has employed, if it's not local it doesn't fit within my mandate. There are other publications my readers can access (if they choose) that include wire copy and regional news, including the award-winning Dallas Morning News, which I myself have written many articles for.

I consider material cheesy if it doesn't pass the smell test. I try not to cater to a small, elite group, for example. I don't just "round up the usual suspects" when I write. I put my best efforts into photography. I try to put some effort into fact-checking. I don't credit staff with material that came from someone else or a press release. I've seen newspapers take sly cheap shots at their competition and former staff members - and those crass efforts are usually rewarded with all the wrong people noticing them, embarrassing the editors who try to embarrass others.

In addition to these guidelines (which would look perfectly obvious to writers and editors who are well-trained) there are a number of universal rules of journalism, and those must be adhered to.

A comment on mediabistro.com about a magazine that used some articles with just one source irritated me. Ever seen those cookbooks for meals that have just three ingredients, or just four ingredients? No, it's not Cordon Bleu cooking, but sometimes, it's called for. If it's a good source and it's all you have time for in the bigger scheme of things for a straightforward preview story, then one source is better than none, and better than two poor ones.

And it all gets cancelled out if the writing and editing sucks.