What’s the best way to get through to stubborn writers? —Kjerstin Johnson, Portland, OR
The editing process should be a collaboration, and if both the writer and editor don’t see it that way, conflicts are bound to crop up. There are certainly problem editors, too, but since you asked specifically about problem writers, I’ve broken them down into five categories; these aren’t exhaustive, so add yours in the comments:
The Newbie.

She’s fresh from the college newspaper and has labored over each word of her piece, so she cannot bear the thought of you making a single change. Your questions about her thesis and requests for additional reporting practically drive her to tears. Your edit should contain lots of comments that explain why you’re making changes you are. If you don’t have the time for that, get her on the phone to discuss. Yes, I know this is annoying. But if she’s smart, she’ll learn quickly. And she’ll value you as an editor who took the time to show her the ropes.
The Know-It-All.

Most writers who have been in the business a long time welcome a thorough edit. But occasionally you’ll run across one who would rather inform you, again and again, how accomplished he is and how rarely he needs to make revisions to his copy. Worst case? He’s an academic who insists that everything has to be phrased just so (nevermind the mind-numbing repetition) in order to be accurate. Your response? Sometimes it’s easiest to pass off your choices as driven by things beyond your control. “We never publish Web pieces over 700 words.” Or, “We’re running a piece next week that makes this point, so I needed to cut it.” Yes, I’m telling you to lie. And then never work with this writer again. If he hasn’t learned how to be edited by now, you’re not going to be the one to teach him.
The Poet.

Her draft is a case study in adjectives and adverbs run amok. Just reply, “Our style guide prevents us from using the word ‘mellifluous.’ My hands are tied.” Suggest that she publish a post on her personal blog featuring all of the poetic descriptions you excised from her piece.
The Procrastinator.

He’s filing so soon. Like, in half an hour. Almost there! Just waiting on a source to call back. Just had something else crop up. (Nevermind that he’s been tweeting and updating his Facebook status and probably learning to bake bread and doing yoga and god knows what else in the interim.) Two days later, you haven’t seen any copy, and the news hook is rapidly expiring. After he’s blown the deadline once, reply with a drop-dead date/time by which you need a draft. Assume he will also miss this deadline. Start looking for another writer or piece to fill the hole. And half an hour after your revised deadline, email him to tell him you’re killing it. Tough love! I usually give this writer a second chance, but if it happens twice, no more.
The Sloth.

She responds to your queries about her draft in email or in comments but doesn’t bother to change the actual text of the piece. She accepts all of your changes without even doing a full read-through, let alone a revise. When you ask for a different quote or anecdote, she’s got nothing. This is a file-it-and-forget-it writer. Her actions have indicated that she just doesn’t care. Feel free to rewrite whole paragraphs and steamroll her prose into shape, or just kill the thing outright. Do not work with her again.
To be fair, I know that there are problem editors, too. I’ve listed some types over at my personal blog.
I was wondering if you had any advice for someone who wants to get started freelancing? —Stephanie Tait
Save up. You’ll need a generous financial cushion. Start by pitching editors you know, and read the publications that you’re pitching. Invest a lot of time and energy in your Web presence: Be active on Twitter and frequently update your personal blog. And after you get an assignment? Don’t be a problem writer.
- 1
- 2
Hey look! This is interesting because it is snarky and has lots of gifs! Journalism!
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 12:00 PM
Though not the point, this also reminds me that I love some editors, and why I love them -- especially the ones who stick with me in my "problem writer" moments (I think we all have problem writer moments looming in our future, even when we're not the newbie.)
(Also, I enjoy almost nothing on the Internet as much as a pitch-perfect GIF. Like Will Ferrell.)
#2 Posted by jina, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 12:27 PM
Hey look! This comment is sarcastic and dismissive of the time/energy the writer put into it. Commentary!
#3 Posted by Garland, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 12:44 PM
Many writing problems can be solved if editors would make the simple effort to coach writers and reporters BEFORE the story is written, work together to create useful, detailed budget lines, and set firm lengths and deadlines. This goes double for working with freelancers.
Unfortunately, lazy editors who churn up vague, half-considered story ideas then lock in publication dates can't be bothered. They just dump the story on the writer and they're shocked -- shocked! -- when they don't get the story they imaged in their vestigial brains.
If it's a bad writer, setting expectations before hand makes them less bad. If written, it also builds a case for remedial action or pink-slipping. There are some writers who really aren't, and just aren't worth the trouble. Real writers want to get better.
Best source on coaching writers is "Coaching Writers" by Don Fry and Roy Peter Clark. Poynter also used to offer a video (VHS, but you know your newsroom still has one!) that goes with the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Coaching-Writers-Reporters-Together-Platforms/dp/0312402031
#4 Posted by Brian O'Connor, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 03:37 PM
Garland, snaps. Hilarious response. Projecting your own snark into the writing (justifying snarkier comments) is some kind of annoying.
#5 Posted by Lily, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 03:41 PM
Is there a RSS feed for your column here?
#6 Posted by Holly, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 04:36 PM
^Garland, Lily
The difference between the usage of snark is that while my comment added very little, no one goes to comments to find anything. See, for example, your replies. This piece is some platitudes about writers caring too much about their words and showing up late, wrapped in snark and gifs to make it seem more interesting than it is. I'd like Massing's take on this piece. Take it to Buzzfeed where I can enjoy it without further lamenting the state of the media while I read it.
#7 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 16 Aug 2012 at 09:53 PM
CJR's site doesn't have RSS feeds for individual columns, but you can subscribe to my Tumblr blog, where I link to each week's column: http://editorrealtalk.tumblr.com.
#8 Posted by Ann Friedman, CJR on Fri 17 Aug 2012 at 04:19 PM
Tom, here's a pro tip: If you don't like something for whatever reason (maybe you don't find it funny, or maybe it merely confounds your expectations), just stop reading it. Click elsewhere. If you prefer your animated GIFs in a clearer context, there are plenty of those on the Web (as you yourself point out, Buzzfeed is an excellent place to start).
Meanwhile, keep nurturing that sarcastic outrage. A recent Pew study found that website comments filled with sarcastic outrage have made a profound difference in elevating online discourse to a level I'm sure even you would find acceptable.
#9 Posted by Bob, CJR on Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 11:58 AM
Great point, Brian O'Connor. The more time you spend on a story in the early stages, the less surprised you are by the final product the writer delivers.
Many editors should look at ourselves before complaining about writers, especially freelancers -- who have such different sets of incentives from salaried workers.
This is something we've been looking at in the office, asking editors to take a look at their own story proposals and editing feedback to see how these impact the writers' work.
#10 Posted by Diego, CJR on Mon 20 Aug 2012 at 10:53 PM
You left out my favorite--the Psycho.
#11 Posted by Expatriated, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 05:11 PM