Monday, October 18, 2010

Away, roughnesses and infelicities!

A good editor will also go beyond spotting and fixing technical problems in the text. He or she should be able to appreciate, respect, and harmonize the author’s intentions and the publisher’s or reader’s requirements. Above all, he or she should give the text the attention it deserves—to polish the draft to its finest form, clearing it of all roughnesses and infelicities, so that reading the text becomes a pleasure rather than a chore or a conundrum.

-- Jose 'Butch' Dalisay Jr., “Editing as a profession,” in yesterday's Philippine Star

PLUS: Reposting--my own process of editing Dear Migs, the MGG book


Anonymous said...

When i read some of PDI's articles, maiiyak ka din talaga. lalo na iyung kay tulfo. Di ko maintindihan kung anong thought process ang pinagdaanan. kung ganyan, kahit anong editing ang gawin,....

Anonymous said...

this article, is devoid of any insight. ano bang klaseng mga editors itong nasa inquirer.

gibbs cadiz said...

ANONYMOUS: as usual, you rouse yourself into a frothy mess without understanding what you're raving against.

your beef, as i gather, is the CONTENT of mr. tulfo's column. you disapprove of it. you don't think he should be making a pitch for either 'jueteng' or one of its supposed operators.

then again, so what? just because you dislike something doesn't mean it need not be published. your dainty sensitivities are not the sole arbiter of what's publishable in a newspaper or not. the inquirer--and other papers, for that matter--is interested in various, even opposing, points of view. that's how civic discourse is strengthened--through the frank exchange of ideas.

in the opinion section of the inquirer alone, de quiros publishes views often at odds with the paper's other columnists. check the star--same thing. now, so many opinionators of the paper have written against jueteng. mr. tulfo happens to think otherwise, and says so. may i just point out, in addition, that his opinions are his alone. he is a COLUMNIST, his words are not the editorial stand of the paper. he has autonomy on what he wants to say in his space, subject only to certain limitations relating to libel, factual accuracy, etc.

to rail against the whole paper for what one columnist says--and to obsess over it, given how you've posted the same thing a number of times on my blog--is simply to fundamentally misunderstand the place of opinion-making in the news media.

so mr. tulfo likes jueteng, and you don't. he's free to say it, you're free to write the inquirer a letter denouncing mr. tulfo for his views. (i assure, you, if it's cogently argued and well-written enough, it will be published. there's a requirement you might find hard to comply with, though. it needs your real name--something you've been unwilling to provide in this venue.)

but that you begrudge the paper for printing a view you simply find distasteful is, well, your own problem. deal with it. my blog cannot be the perpetual sounding board for your (ANONYMOUS AT THAT) angst.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search this blog or the Web