What to do when a newspaper borks your freelance submission?
August 16, 2015 8:38 PM
My wife has started doing some freelance writing, and her first story will be published in tomorrow's edition of our local newspaper. Yay! Unfortunately, someone in the editorial chain made several errors, including misspelling a simple word in a section they (poorly) rewrote, and misspelling the name of one of the subjects of the story in several of the photo captions. They also rewrote another portion into a bunch of short, choppy sentences that totally ruin the flow of the article. How should she respond?
She's already left a voice mail for the editor she submitted the story to, and presumably (hopefully?) they'll at least fix the obvious typos for the online version at some point, but it's probably too late to correct it for the print edition. She's also reached out to her sources to explain the situation to them. What else can/should she do?
She's really heartbroken because this is her first freelance story, so she was hoping to be able to use it as a writing sample. Would it be considered bad form to include both her original manuscript and the printed version to show that the mistakes in the article weren't hers? Or should she not even bother using it as a sample since the editors did such a hatchet job on it?
She's already left a voice mail for the editor she submitted the story to, and presumably (hopefully?) they'll at least fix the obvious typos for the online version at some point, but it's probably too late to correct it for the print edition. She's also reached out to her sources to explain the situation to them. What else can/should she do?
She's really heartbroken because this is her first freelance story, so she was hoping to be able to use it as a writing sample. Would it be considered bad form to include both her original manuscript and the printed version to show that the mistakes in the article weren't hers? Or should she not even bother using it as a sample since the editors did such a hatchet job on it?
Cash that check! Good learning experience and if she takes this too personally, freelancing might not be for her.
posted by paulcole at 9:25 PM on August 16, 2015
posted by paulcole at 9:25 PM on August 16, 2015
It sounds like your wife saw the article before it's been published. Is she sure she's seen the final version?
Would it be considered bad form to include both her original manuscript and the printed version to show that the mistakes in the article weren't hers?
I think so, yes.
You always want to show your best work, and sometimes the work that means a lot to you isn't your best work. No one will care about excuses or explanations, even if it is someone else's fault, and no one will care about these errors as much as your wife (strictly speaking about using this in a portfolio). No one has the patience to hear, "well, actually, this was supposed to..."
As for the errors themselves, that's part of the industry, whether you're a freelancer or on staff. The New York Times publishes corrections every single day.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:48 PM on August 16, 2015
Would it be considered bad form to include both her original manuscript and the printed version to show that the mistakes in the article weren't hers?
I think so, yes.
You always want to show your best work, and sometimes the work that means a lot to you isn't your best work. No one will care about excuses or explanations, even if it is someone else's fault, and no one will care about these errors as much as your wife (strictly speaking about using this in a portfolio). No one has the patience to hear, "well, actually, this was supposed to..."
As for the errors themselves, that's part of the industry, whether you're a freelancer or on staff. The New York Times publishes corrections every single day.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:48 PM on August 16, 2015
That's the gig. You write, they screw it up. There is this fantasy notion out there of smart editors making sensitive, respectful improvements to one's copy. That's a fantasy. You load your words into the mechanism like farmers load soybeans into a factory. The mangers can do as they like with them. That's the bargain one makes when one sells something: buyers get to do as they like. And it's almost never an improvement.
If you want to ensure stuff gets published as you write it, your only hope is to be your own publisher. Write a blog - and good luck getting anyone to read it. If you want an audience, you need to make an unholy pact with the devil. Suck up and accept that it will be subject to "collaboration" (a euphemism for having your stuff screwed up beyond recognition).
Do not complain. Do not leave angry voicemails. Do not insist on published corrections. Those are newbie moves. Remember that no one's paying careful attention, anyway, so move on and just USE it. Brag about the credit, and wield it to leapfrog to bigger gigs with bigger publications (which will screw up your just as badly....trust me, I've written for the biggest-name publications out there), and hope your broken heart scars quickly so that the next 300 times it hurts less.
Or, again, don't sell your stuff. Control its use to retain its purity. But don't deal with the devil and then whine about the results. Be smarter than that.
posted by Quisp Lover at 9:51 PM on August 16, 2015
If you want to ensure stuff gets published as you write it, your only hope is to be your own publisher. Write a blog - and good luck getting anyone to read it. If you want an audience, you need to make an unholy pact with the devil. Suck up and accept that it will be subject to "collaboration" (a euphemism for having your stuff screwed up beyond recognition).
Do not complain. Do not leave angry voicemails. Do not insist on published corrections. Those are newbie moves. Remember that no one's paying careful attention, anyway, so move on and just USE it. Brag about the credit, and wield it to leapfrog to bigger gigs with bigger publications (which will screw up your just as badly....trust me, I've written for the biggest-name publications out there), and hope your broken heart scars quickly so that the next 300 times it hurts less.
Or, again, don't sell your stuff. Control its use to retain its purity. But don't deal with the devil and then whine about the results. Be smarter than that.
posted by Quisp Lover at 9:51 PM on August 16, 2015
She's really heartbroken because this is her first freelance story,
Just Nthing, as a former freelance journalist, that this is an inherent, if not quintessential part of the job. Editors and subs will edit, even if it's not necessary, even if it makes the piece worse sometimes. You just gotta live with it I'm afraid.
posted by smoke at 1:51 AM on August 17, 2015
Just Nthing, as a former freelance journalist, that this is an inherent, if not quintessential part of the job. Editors and subs will edit, even if it's not necessary, even if it makes the piece worse sometimes. You just gotta live with it I'm afraid.
posted by smoke at 1:51 AM on August 17, 2015
Just last week, a coworker screwed up my article so badly that lawyers got involved because someone got misrepresented. My coworker apologised but nobody cares whose fault it actually was. It's got my name on it. Kill me now.
So yeah, get used to it. Write more excellent articles, then the individual blooper won't sting so much.
Use the corrected online version as a reference, if ppssible.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:53 AM on August 17, 2015
So yeah, get used to it. Write more excellent articles, then the individual blooper won't sting so much.
Use the corrected online version as a reference, if ppssible.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:53 AM on August 17, 2015
I have been edited well, at some of the larger alt-weeklies. That is a rare joy. Most papers will just drive you nuts with bad edits and embarrassing errors that make you look like a dummy.
One day she'll probably look back and realize that some of the lost paragraphs she grieved over really weren't that good, but every freelancer has a few editing horror stories. Editors can make you say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you mean, or they can make you say something that you know will really hurt somebody's feelings, something you would never say. It sucks, but she should try to remember that in five years nobody will remember that this article ever existed.
She should ABSOLUTELY NOT complain to anybody about the edits. She should also take a hard look at the factual errors and decide if they are bad enough that they actually need correcting. Will the errors affect anybody's life in a meaningful way? If they really are that bad, she should include a very short, polite note about them in the email she sends to the editor thanking them for running the article. But really, she's probably better off not mentioning the errors at all.
It's tough to get established as a freelance writer, and it's only getting tougher as more publications fold but there are still a gazillion wannabe freelancers fighting for every gig. She should do everything she can to avoid seeming difficult or confrontational while she's trying to establish herself.
If the published article was just too botched to use as a sample, she should put a self-promotional website together and post her original draft there saying where the article was published but making no note that this online version differs from the published version. Whenever she wants to use the story as a sample, she should direct people to the one on her site.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:08 AM on August 17, 2015
One day she'll probably look back and realize that some of the lost paragraphs she grieved over really weren't that good, but every freelancer has a few editing horror stories. Editors can make you say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you mean, or they can make you say something that you know will really hurt somebody's feelings, something you would never say. It sucks, but she should try to remember that in five years nobody will remember that this article ever existed.
She should ABSOLUTELY NOT complain to anybody about the edits. She should also take a hard look at the factual errors and decide if they are bad enough that they actually need correcting. Will the errors affect anybody's life in a meaningful way? If they really are that bad, she should include a very short, polite note about them in the email she sends to the editor thanking them for running the article. But really, she's probably better off not mentioning the errors at all.
It's tough to get established as a freelance writer, and it's only getting tougher as more publications fold but there are still a gazillion wannabe freelancers fighting for every gig. She should do everything she can to avoid seeming difficult or confrontational while she's trying to establish herself.
If the published article was just too botched to use as a sample, she should put a self-promotional website together and post her original draft there saying where the article was published but making no note that this online version differs from the published version. Whenever she wants to use the story as a sample, she should direct people to the one on her site.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:08 AM on August 17, 2015
Typos are part of the way the world works; the ONLY thing that needs a correction is the person's name, nothing else.
You don't like the way it was edited, or how it "ruins" the flow of the story? Sorry, but: too bad. They aren't in it to publish literary masterpieces or to build her portfolio, a newspaper is there to get facts out fast. The editors can, and always will, edit as (and as much) as they see fit. And complaining about it will just sound unprofessional.
Even more: going back to her sources to complain to them about how the editors cut up her story? Good grief, no don't! You interview, you confirm the facts, but you NEVER run the unpublished story past anyone BUT your editors!
(Not a writer myself, but I am assistant editor at a chain of local newspapers, and if we had someone go back to their sources like that we'd get rid of them.)
posted by easily confused at 3:02 AM on August 17, 2015
You don't like the way it was edited, or how it "ruins" the flow of the story? Sorry, but: too bad. They aren't in it to publish literary masterpieces or to build her portfolio, a newspaper is there to get facts out fast. The editors can, and always will, edit as (and as much) as they see fit. And complaining about it will just sound unprofessional.
Even more: going back to her sources to complain to them about how the editors cut up her story? Good grief, no don't! You interview, you confirm the facts, but you NEVER run the unpublished story past anyone BUT your editors!
(Not a writer myself, but I am assistant editor at a chain of local newspapers, and if we had someone go back to their sources like that we'd get rid of them.)
posted by easily confused at 3:02 AM on August 17, 2015
I used to work as a freelance journalist. What you describe happens every day to every writer (freelance or staff) and is totally normal. Sometimes my article got a complete rewrite and no one bat an eyelash. If she complains, particularly as she's just starting out, she won't get another gig.
Yes, it would be bad form to include both versions of the article in her portfolio. You only include the clipping.
She should use this clipping as a sample until she gets a better sample. If it's really too disastrous, use as a sample whatever she used to get this gig.
posted by frantumaglia at 4:30 AM on August 17, 2015
Yes, it would be bad form to include both versions of the article in her portfolio. You only include the clipping.
She should use this clipping as a sample until she gets a better sample. If it's really too disastrous, use as a sample whatever she used to get this gig.
posted by frantumaglia at 4:30 AM on August 17, 2015
I regularly write freelance for my local newspaper and the number one thing I have found helpful in limiting how much I get edited is strictly adhering to the word count I am given. Now, I write a recurring feature, so it is pretty established how much space that feature needs every week in terms of page layout. So my editor knows the max I can write is 450 words and that length, along with a few photos, is the right amount to fill the page spread. In the beginning, I would go over that amount by like 20 or 50 words because I could not bear to leave something out, and every single time I was edited, often not to my liking.
So have your wife ask about word count and then pay attention to what gets edited to see if there is a pattern. It might be that there are stylistic conventions she is violating.
It is also ok to ask the editor to clarify the edits for your wife's own learning purposes. My bet is that if she turned in clean copy, the edits were likely for space.
posted by megancita at 5:30 AM on August 17, 2015
So have your wife ask about word count and then pay attention to what gets edited to see if there is a pattern. It might be that there are stylistic conventions she is violating.
It is also ok to ask the editor to clarify the edits for your wife's own learning purposes. My bet is that if she turned in clean copy, the edits were likely for space.
posted by megancita at 5:30 AM on August 17, 2015
I wrote the first shut-up-and-take-it-like-a-pro response, above. But I do have some moves to suggest.
LEARNING EXPERIENCE:
1. Some edits are just for length. Per a couple postings above, you can sometimes preempt this by having a clearer idea of length as you write. Even so, length requirements are fluid, and even if you nail the length, you could still have essential stuff cut because of shifting needs during the edit process. Your words are a product, and you've sold them, and they can do as they'd like. A restaurant chef may feel enraged the first few times he sees diners ignoring their paté (an essential part of his creation!), but soon comes to understand it's his job in the scheme of things to send out great dishes, and it's the diner's prerogative to do as they'd like with it all. As a writer, the the reader isn't the customer; it's your editors.
2. This one is the biggie, and if she can grok this point, it will quickly catapult her to the perspective of an old pro: just because someone is fixing stuff badly doesn't mean stuff didn't need fixing. Take a hard look at every single edit, however minute. In every case (except random typos and cuts for length), she'll see (it will take work, and she'll have to transcend her emotions) that the editor saw a problem and clumsily tried to fix it. Ponder the problems you created. LEARN.
DEFENSIVE TACTICS:
1. File at the very last minute. Just barely before you'd enrage anyone (if you don't know your editors well, it's harder to gauge, so be more conservative). Keep your stuff out of the machine as long as you can.
2. Give the editors something to edit. Include some intentional mispellings. Repeat a a few words here and there. Give their twitchy editor pencils somethign to devouur; some simple puzzles too solve. Punctuation; too. Other than this, be sure you've written with great economy and with grammatical perfection.
3. Include stuff intentionally to be cut. Write an optional, modular passage that can be removed without hurting anything. Mark it "optional passage". You can also do this in the reverse: include a passage that would work as a sidebar, or in the body text, or cut altogether. This gives the editors more material to fool around with, more flexibility.
4. Remember that editing is their JOB. They deem themselves professionals, even if they suck (and they DO suck), plus they're your bosses. Absolutely nothing good comes from bluntly telling your bosses they suck at their jobs. Bear in mind that just because writing seems (at least for the time being....though you're now starting to get clued in) like a "fun" or "glamorous" way to make a living, it's like any other job: your boss is a clueless asshole and you can't let him know that you're aware of that, even when his mishaps create misery for you. Why should you have it better than anyone else in any other job? Do you imagine that because your stuff's read by lots of people that that gives you ACTUAL power at the workplace? BZZZZZZ....sorry, you didn't think it through.
posted by Quisp Lover at 8:52 AM on August 17, 2015
LEARNING EXPERIENCE:
1. Some edits are just for length. Per a couple postings above, you can sometimes preempt this by having a clearer idea of length as you write. Even so, length requirements are fluid, and even if you nail the length, you could still have essential stuff cut because of shifting needs during the edit process. Your words are a product, and you've sold them, and they can do as they'd like. A restaurant chef may feel enraged the first few times he sees diners ignoring their paté (an essential part of his creation!), but soon comes to understand it's his job in the scheme of things to send out great dishes, and it's the diner's prerogative to do as they'd like with it all. As a writer, the the reader isn't the customer; it's your editors.
2. This one is the biggie, and if she can grok this point, it will quickly catapult her to the perspective of an old pro: just because someone is fixing stuff badly doesn't mean stuff didn't need fixing. Take a hard look at every single edit, however minute. In every case (except random typos and cuts for length), she'll see (it will take work, and she'll have to transcend her emotions) that the editor saw a problem and clumsily tried to fix it. Ponder the problems you created. LEARN.
DEFENSIVE TACTICS:
1. File at the very last minute. Just barely before you'd enrage anyone (if you don't know your editors well, it's harder to gauge, so be more conservative). Keep your stuff out of the machine as long as you can.
2. Give the editors something to edit. Include some intentional mispellings. Repeat a a few words here and there. Give their twitchy editor pencils somethign to devouur; some simple puzzles too solve. Punctuation; too. Other than this, be sure you've written with great economy and with grammatical perfection.
3. Include stuff intentionally to be cut. Write an optional, modular passage that can be removed without hurting anything. Mark it "optional passage". You can also do this in the reverse: include a passage that would work as a sidebar, or in the body text, or cut altogether. This gives the editors more material to fool around with, more flexibility.
4. Remember that editing is their JOB. They deem themselves professionals, even if they suck (and they DO suck), plus they're your bosses. Absolutely nothing good comes from bluntly telling your bosses they suck at their jobs. Bear in mind that just because writing seems (at least for the time being....though you're now starting to get clued in) like a "fun" or "glamorous" way to make a living, it's like any other job: your boss is a clueless asshole and you can't let him know that you're aware of that, even when his mishaps create misery for you. Why should you have it better than anyone else in any other job? Do you imagine that because your stuff's read by lots of people that that gives you ACTUAL power at the workplace? BZZZZZZ....sorry, you didn't think it through.
posted by Quisp Lover at 8:52 AM on August 17, 2015
PS: re: complaining, consider actors. Every single thing they do passes through the judgement and sharp knife of editors - dweebie types no one's every heard of, who are paid a tiny fraction of what actors get paid, and who have the utter power to change and ruin any/every aspect of their performance. Now THAT is mortifying! What we writers withstand is nothing compared to them!
Yet when was the last time you heard an actor complain about a film's poor editing or direction? Never?
Learn!
posted by Quisp Lover at 9:00 AM on August 17, 2015
Yet when was the last time you heard an actor complain about a film's poor editing or direction? Never?
Learn!
posted by Quisp Lover at 9:00 AM on August 17, 2015
Space is certainly one consideration, but there's also the writer's voice and editorial opinions --- did the article contain her personal views, was it slanted in any way, was little more than a puff piece or advertisement for her sources? Was there much of her personal 'I' in it: I saw this, I enjoyed that, I thought it was delicious?
My point is that a columnist can get away with a lot of that stuff, but the average newspaper writer, freelance or otherwise, can NOT. They have to entirely remove themselves, their opinions and preferences from their articles. Then that article is turned in to the editors, and the best thing the writer can do is forget it: it's over and done and whatever happens next, it's out of their hands.
Newspapers are looking for clear and concise and factual writing, not the author's personal take; and if that's not the kind of writing she prefers, she'd be better off writing a book.
posted by easily confused at 9:01 AM on August 17, 2015
My point is that a columnist can get away with a lot of that stuff, but the average newspaper writer, freelance or otherwise, can NOT. They have to entirely remove themselves, their opinions and preferences from their articles. Then that article is turned in to the editors, and the best thing the writer can do is forget it: it's over and done and whatever happens next, it's out of their hands.
Newspapers are looking for clear and concise and factual writing, not the author's personal take; and if that's not the kind of writing she prefers, she'd be better off writing a book.
posted by easily confused at 9:01 AM on August 17, 2015
Thanks, everybody. They ended up correcting the mistakes in the online version, but the story did go to print with the misspelled word. She'll just use the clipping as-is and hope for better results next time.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:19 PM on August 17, 2015
posted by tonycpsu at 6:19 PM on August 17, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
If she is successful in getting the online version updated then she can use the link and a PDF from the website.
I would never, ever place blame on an editor, to other potential editors, not matter how at fault they are.
posted by Youremyworld at 8:51 PM on August 16, 2015