Blogging on blogging pt.3: who needs an editor?

July 2, 2:28 PMChicago Literary Scene ExaminerRobert Duffer

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Chicago Literary Scene Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Oh, Clip Art, your wonders are vast

Everyone.

Working with an editor can be hit or miss. Some editors are so overworked, overseeing print and online content as the financial roof collapses, that your story can get scarred. In the worst cases it can be mauled of its meaning. You can blame the editor, but its your byline on the article A good editor helps you realize the story you were imagining. They know the three-headed audience--readers, admen, and executives—better than you and are able to look at from a broader perspective. They can clarify for the reader what to you was apparent. They highlight the strengths and cut the weaknesses.

Substance and matter: The most time consuming part of freelancing is pitching story ideas. It takes the right pitch at the right market at the right time to work. Magazines and papers are limited by space, content and newsworthiness. It’s the editor’s job to decide what is the best content from all the pitches and ideas spawned in an editorial meeting. In general, then, what comes out in a magazine or paper should be of much higher quality and most appropriate for its audience.

Reaching an audience:  There’s thousands of local blogs and only a few local mags. The best blogs have regular features and sections like magazines so the reader/audience knows what to expect. The first section I turn to in Newsweek is the quotes and cartoons. The first section of TimeOut Chicago is the back page interview. There’s a level of trust between the editor and his audience that can be lost by a blogger pursuing his whims instead of the cohesive mission of a collaboration. The spontaneity, or ADD impulsiveness of a blog, can be fun, but disjointed.

Timeliness: Whether it’s weeklies or dailies, the print product can’t compete with the blogosphere on timeliness. The best mags make up for that by having more detailed, balanced coverage, the actual whole story, instead of just the breaking news. Also, the notion of timeliness isn’t as relevant in print now that everyone has an online complement. A good editor assigns and selects stories that transcend the ether of time into insightful reportage that can endure—and matter—beyond the first fifteen minutes.

Headlines: Editors are better punsters. Bloggers are unabashed about vague wording and bad puns that would be the ridicule or amusement of editorial peers.

Getting seen, getting paid: The common argument is that by posting on the WORLD-wide web, you’re getting access to well, the world. But this also means there’s an oversaturation of information. I don’t know of many stories that can be covered distinctly by millions of people. In print, or a part of an online mag, you’re getting direct, targeted exposure to both subscribers and newsstands. There’s a pretty good chance that whoever bought the magazine will be reading your work. Who the hell knows if you’re work is being read on the blogosphere? Like subscription rates, page views don’t tell you who’s reading, only who’s visiting. Most online complements to the print pub have comment sections for feedback.

The collaboration between writer and editor makes for a better product, even as dusk sets on that collaboration.