|
|
|
|
Editors Note:
APCUG/Reports is pleased to have a contribution from Alan Zeichick on a difficult subject. In the July 1998 issue we featured a column by Esther Schindler "The Fine Art of Editing". Esther suggested that as a follow-up we consider an article on the ethical aspects of being an editor of a user-group publication. She recommended that we contact Alan Zeichick, a colleague held in high esteem, to author it. Hers was a great choice for us. We're delighted he accepted. You will be too.
Editing is neither art nor science. It's both. The artistry comes in deciding what to say. The science comes in knowing how to say it. But neither artistic talent nor scientific acumen will help you face one of the greatest challenges confounding every journalist: How to be worthy of the trust bestowed upon you by your readers.
Today, let's focus on PAID OR FREE? SO WHAT?
A journalist is a journalist. An editor is an editor. I don't care whether you write for PC Magazine or HAL-PC Magazine, or whether you draw a salary or not. As a reader, I look to your printed magazine, on-line 'zine, or newsletter to provide information that's enjoyable to read, informative, thorough, and accurate. I also want to be able to trust
That particular articles were published because you - the editor - thought that they were the best articles to publish, not because they suited any hidden agenda.
That the writers who wrote the pieces were hired because of their knowledge, and what they wrote was written primarily for my benefit. That the editing process did not alter the meaning of the submitted themes, but rather enhanced and clarified the points that the writer wished to express.
What do I mean by a "hidden agenda?" Well, if a magazine publishes a particular product review in order to attract advertising from that vendor, or decides not to publish a review as punishment because the vendor didn't show up at last month's meeting, that's a hidden agenda. If a publication chooses not to cover a sponsored event because the editor (or user-group president) was fired from one of the sponsors, that's a hidden agenda.
Similarly, if you have consultants or dealers writing for your newsletter, make sure there's no conflict of interest, no possibility that their cheery-sounding prose is really a Trojan horse designed to further their business interests.
What do I mean by "did not alter the meaning"? I know a number of editors who routinely change manuscripts to emphasize or de-emphasize certain points. Perhaps a review was too negative, and the editor was afraid of losing a key advertiser - so they downplayed the conclusion, or inserted a dollop of praise to provide "balance." Of course, it is your job to edit - for example, to remove gratuitous bashing of vendors, or over-emphasis on parts of a story. But if the writer felt that a product or event completely sucked, don't change that to "could have used some minor improvement." If you believe that the tone or meaning of an article is inappropriate, work with the writer; don't change it yourself.
This is as good a time as any to mention: Be sure to provide author proofs, if possible in final layout form, to each and every writer for your publication! Speaking as a professional with nearly 400 published articles, nothing is as frustrating as being denied the chance to approve the edits on my copy - and having errors show up in print, or seeing words or phrases that I would never use appear under my byline. True, most edits improve my copy: I'm certainly not perfect. Even so, I won't write for you unless you guarantee my opportunity to review author proofs. Sure, many writers won't care. But others will. And all will appreciate the courtesy.
For example, one user-group magazine recently reviewed a piece of software. It was a well-written review, generally favorable, but pointing out some legitimate flaws in the product. Fine, fine - except that the magazine's editor was the programmer who coded the product, with an equity stake in that product's sales - and that bias was not disclosed. That lapse of judgment naturally called into question the validity of the review, and also raised the specter of mistrust for past and future product coverage in that magazine.
Disclosure is appropriate wherever there is the possibility for conflict of interest, real or perceived. (Perception is just as damaging as reality.) Are you giving a free ad to a consultant in exchange for his writing an article for you? Disclose. Did the industry personality you just interviewed take you out for a really expensive dinner and show afterwards, and offer you a free sample of his product? Disclose. Was the product being reviewed purchased by the reviewer, or donated by the vendor? Were any strings attached, such as allowing the vendor to see the review prior to publication? Disclose. Is there any quid pro quo for services provided to the user group or the magazine? Disclose.
Alan Zeichick is Director of Camden Associates, a San Francisco-area consultancy specializing in technology and technology publishing. Most recently, he served as Editor-in-Chief of Miller Freeman's Network Magazine, and as the founding editor of OS/2 Magazine. In his 14 years as a magazine editor, Alan has accumulated a fine collection of "vendor apparel," but he's particularly proud of his APCUG/Comdex 1995 annual-meeting jersey.