How to handle columns altered "to get back at you"

I was only ever involved in making substantive changes to a column once.

I was in college and was the managing editor of a small bi-weekly niche publication. The editor in chief and I both saw this column on that year's Oscars and saw it was a whiny, bitchy rant about a particular subject. The editor in chief and I made drastic changes to it and turned it into a well-reasoned argument.

We explained what and why we did what we did to the writer. As I remember it, she was OK with that. When we sat down with the then-incoming dean of the journalism school, he praised the column for its appropriate tone (without prompting from us to read it).

In THAT circumstance, I'd support reconstructive surgery on a column. However, in the situation you described, that's a serious no-no.

 

I hope you and the EIC ran the changes past the columnist before you ran it. Otherwise, you're guilty of calling your opinion hers. If she's OK with the changes, then that's fine. I make suggestions to columnists all the time. But I would never alter the tone or opinion without running it by them first. It's their voice.

 

Well, I'm glad it worked out, sort of, but this whole thing is still unbelievable to me.

My general approach to life in this business has always been A) people are generally good and B) people are generally good at what they do, and unfortunately, when something like this happens, up comes C) I sometimes live in a dream world.

 

Exactly.

Changing a person's column should not be forbidden but it damn well better be discussed with the columnist before anything is altered. It is the columnist's, or writer's, opinion. Even changing a word or two could alter the meaning of a sentence.

Iceman, I hope you explained WHY your columns were altered and the person who changed them is disciplined in some way. Changing something to "get back at you" or teach a lesson, or just because, is incredibly wrong. Forgetting that so everyone can move on happily down the road is BS.

 

So did you not mention to the powers that be what the editor told you about intentionally changing the wording of your columns as payback? I can understand the not wanting to rock the boat mentality and preserving the income. As a freelancer myself for several years, I totally get that. But if the editor has done this crap to you, two things: One, what makes you think he won't pull more crap on you (not to mention other people, freelancers or staffers) now that he's gotten away with this? Two, if the editor admits he did what he did, he needs to be outed. This business has enough trouble as it is, the last thing we need is morons doing more damage from within.

 

I still say the guy was lying, didn't do it as payback and was just not a very good editor and an even worse communicator.

He thought sounding like a tough guy was better than sounding like a crappy editor.

My 2 cents anyway.

 

Following up on the all-is-kinda-well ending...

The powers that be know my stuff was altered and I'm putting a non-rancorous mention of it into my next column, basically saying a few of my recent columns were garbled on their way to the Internet by deities who felt I wasn't being appropriately reverential at the alter of fandom.

Vague and tongue-in-cheek, I realize, and it avoids taking shots at the person responsible. But it's mostly about making the standard point that I'm not doing this stuff to be a cheerleader and to let people know they can now see my stuff as originally written. It was reader complaints, after all, that led to the hacking up of my work (along with the missed deadlines, lest anyone think I'm trying to play down my idiocy in all this).

As for letting the editor in question off the hook, he did offer to put the originals online and did so without being ordered to by higher-ups as far as I know. Yeah, that was a major screwup on his part, but since I've had a whopper or two in my career (i.e. the time I nearly went to jail for manslaughter) I'm willing to let something slide once since he's generally been OK while I've been working for him.

 

...and not to totally change the subject, but just so I don't leave you hanging with the "what the &$%# is this manslaughter thing:"

That could be a topic in itself and it's something I mention when talking to journalism classes. It happened maybe 15 years ago when I was a crime reporter in Los Angeles and a guy wandered out of the hills into a ranger station on the outskirts of a town about 40 miles to the north, saying he'd been lost for days and his girlfriend was still out there and in bad shape. Cops and rescues took off in a helicopter to where he said she was, leaving him alone at the station (an odd move, IMHO).

I got there minutes later, being one of those 24/7 police scanner types, and tried to ask him what happened, but he was pretty out of it, saying he was starving and needed something before he could talk. He said cops told him it'd be about 30 minutes or so before they got back. I knew there was a Subway about five minutes away and agreed to rush him there and back, more for humane than journalistic reasons.

Well, as some have probably guessed, rescuers come back minutes later because there's something wrong with the directions the guy gave them. I heard them on the scanner wondering where he was when I was maybe two minutes from getting back. Got there, explained myself and then insisted I had rushed from the office without my press pass or any other credentials, which they were clearly ready to confiscate. Got seriously chewed out, but they eventually seemed to accept I was trying to be a nice guy who'd done a remarkably stupid thing (I'd been at the beat for a while and had a good rep, otherwise...)

That might have been the end of it, except the woman died shortly after getting to the hospital. So the next thing became determining if the woman might have lived had she gotten there earlier. A reasonable person probably figures my two-minute intervention was enough of a delay, but when you're on the investigating end there is very little about your thoughts that are reasonable...

It took a few hours to determine it was not to be a factor and incredibly the matter stayed between me, the cops and a couple of friends at the office. Went on to do just fine at the beat for a few more years, but learned the irrevocable lesson:

DO NOT INSERT YOURSELF IN A SITUATION YOU ARE COVERING!!

I've struggled with that while taking pictures of people's houses burning down while they try to get help from those nearby with water buckets. And I'm among the critics of TV medical reporters helping Haiti victims (the fact it's part of their coverage irks me in particular). Anyhow, it makes for lively discussion with students and those disagreeing with me certainly make some good points.

...back to the topic at hand, if there's any of it left to discuss.

 

Ignoring that whole manslaughter thing...

Did the higher-ups know that the editor changed your copy intentionally to screw you, or just that he changed it?

 

That's a lesson learned the hard way.

 

Final post, probably, on this:

Yes the editors know and, as I mentioned, so will readers once my next column is published. I'm gentle with my words and don't name names, but it's clear my work was altered because it lacked the cheerleader quality some readers told the powers-that-be it should apparently have.

All things considered, I'm fine with the outcome. My original work will be what's online. The editor works in the office and I'm a freelancer, and since we've both been doing a decent job over a period of time I can see the higher-ups deciding there's no point firing him or otherwise getting drastic, especially since I'm not causing any more waves. I'd probably do the same thing and just keep it in mind if anything similar happens again. Life's too short and I have too many other things to worry about to harbor lingering resentment.

 

You should handle it the way you feel is best. You can only present your case and deal with the outcome.

If I were that editor's boss, I'd fire him in a heartbeat, though.