Reading Reflection #1

I tend to think of editing in a positive light. While I think that raw, unadulterated work surely has its place in certain settings, editing is important when providing information and ideas to a broader audience. This applies across all language mediums, from written works to radio broadcasts to films. If the intention of the author is to share information, stories, or thoughts with others, it needs to be digestible, understandable, and able to reach the people that could potentially connect and be impacted by the work. Editing is not only a source of refining, correction, and adherence to rules of language, but also a bridge. A quote by Jacques Barzun from the reading does a great job of illustrating this. He writes about how with other art forms, we do not assume that everyone has the innate capability to create these things just by the grace of their talents. Because most everyone has at least a functioning command of language, this is often taken for granted when it comes to the written word. It is assumed that everyone should be able to write well, and have their work consumed and understood. This is not the case, and even those who have well constructed ideas can encounter difficulty in putting word to page in a way that people are able to grasp. This is the gap that editing can help bridge, and why I think of editing in a positive light. It refines works in a way that makes certain ideas and concepts more accessible, and it can in turn help authors make adjustments in their own writing to be more accessible or understandable moving forward. 

Whether editing is seen as positive or negative by people has to do with the intention behind the work itself or the editing taking place. Those who place value on rules, standards, and structure will see editing as a necessary and beneficial tool to ensure that what is published is up to par. Editing is seen as a positive light by many because of the collaborative nature of the practice. It is a creative process that begins with an idea, and editing is a formative step to make that idea something bigger than it started out as. Editing allows people to work together to create something that resonates with people across spectrums and divides. On the opposite side of the same coin, we have those who do not agree with traditional conventions or standards for whatever reason, and who find the editorial process structured around these rules to remove creativity and free expression. The reading discusses the component of editing known as selection, and this is a space that could easily be construed in a negative light depending on the standards at hand. It discusses the idea of the editor as gatekeeper, and this perception could be a valid reason for why someone would see editing negatively. What that editor gatekeeps from the general public or the publishing audience is sure to be based on, like I mentioned before, a set of rules. If these rules are unjust, or if they remove truth or credibility for the sake of idealogy, this gatekeeping could not only be perceived as negative, but also potentially dangerous depending on the severity of selection. When considering the idea of an editor as gatekeeper, the first thing that came to mind was mass media and news outlets. Does a news organization emphasize certain pieces of a story in their editing to add drama and generate ratings, creating more worry or stress than is necessary for the public? Do they downplay or minimize a situation in an effort to protect them from themselves? These editing choices have the potential to directly affect the lives of readers and consumers, and if done poorly, would surely lead to a negative perception of the practice. 

I do think that the way that people perceive editing matters. The more widespread a negative outlook on the process is, the less credibility within society it has. This can have far reaching consequences and has the potential to lead to an erosion of trust in the process and the product. If this process is seen as something positive, though, it can foster a collaborative and creative environment. When we think of editing as something that can make our ideas more tangible and accessible, and that can connect us with others who value those ideas and want to contribute, it can create community and open lines of communication.