The Moderation of a Good Editor

Yesterday I wrote “tenant” when I meant “tenet.” An alert reader pointed out my mistake. I thanked him and fixed it.

Last week I encouraged public school administrators and teachers unions to stop complaining about voucher programs and start competing for students. Readers pointed out that I had failed to factor in the anti-competitive nature of the playing field where public schools have mandates not required of private schools and where there are penalties for losing students that go beyond a one-to-one match. I did that not out of malice, but ignorance, something that is in no short supply in these parts. I now know more than I did last week.

All of which got me to thinking about editors. Just in time, this morning the Wisconsin State Journal ran an oped on that very topic by one of my favorite writers, Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg is a center-right Never Trump Republican and editor-in-chief of the online news site, The Dispatch.

His piece on editing was somewhat ironic because Goldberg doesn’t seem to edit himself or allow his work to be edited by others — a disease that struck Garrison Keillor a couple of decades ago and from which he has never recovered. In his syndicated column Goldberg has to keep it tight to fit the 800 words or so in a standard oped piece. But on his own site he rambles on and on, to the extent that I find him hard to read, even though I usually really like his stuff. He did the same thing in his excellent, and unnecessarily long, book, Suicide of the West. I highly recommend reading half of it.

That aside, in his essay this morning Goldberg writes about editing in the broader sense and he points out how it applies to all kinds of institutions. He sees editing as a “circuit breaker” to slow things down and to demand accuracy, balance and accountability. He writes about editing as a means of calming the passions of the moment.

“What do good editors do?” Goldberg asks. “Beyond the grammar and style stuff, editors slow the process down as a necessary part of quality control. They tell reporters that an unverified rumor is not printable without adequate verification. They tell opinion columnists that a histrionic argument that ignores contrary evidence needs to be shelved or reworked. They stand against the tide of momentary collective passion or the irrepressible ambition of individual journalists to maintain a higher standard for the institution as a whole.

“In this light, the role of almost every important institution is editorial. Scientific organizations have rigorous systems for testing the validity of ideas. Criminal courts ignore mob passion to sift mere allegation from fact, and to edit out irrelevant facts.”

Goldberg didn’t take it to the next step, but I will. Editing is fundamentally about moderation — in both senses of the word. It’s hard to be a good editor or moderator — of writing or of your own internal conversation — without tending toward moderation in your views. The job of the external or internal editor is to ask if you’ve considered the other sides of the argument, to ask if you’ve been fair to those you criticize.

I sometimes write about the crowds of staffers here at YSDA Tower as a way of using self-mockery to make the point that YSDA is one guy who functions as writer, editor, designer, accountant (as if there was anything to account for), etc. I try mightily to weed out the typos, but at least one seems to get through most days. I try to be informed, to consider all the valid arguments, to anticipate the objections, to be open about my general point of view (biases) and to avoid cherry picking my facts. Even publications with real staffs and real budgets try to do those things and still get it wrong from time to time.

I often write “we” when it’s really “I” because I find it comforting to pretend that I have backup. But I actually do have editors. It’s the readers. I appreciate it when you point up my typos, errors in fact or important information that I’ve left out. Well, that’s not precisely true. I always find my mistakes embarrassing and my first reaction to criticism is often that the critic is a nit-picker. But then my internal editor kicks in and I grudgingly accept the correction… usually.

When I was a kid I had a sort of verbal tick. I said, “yeah, but…” a lot. It drove my father crazy. He’d say, “David, no more ‘yeah, buts’!” I suppose he didn’t like the implied questioning of authority and his son’s penchant for never accepting even a simple statement as fact.

Yeah, but actually I think that frame of mind has served me well in life. Second thoughts might be the most valuable ones to have. We have a built-in alarm system around here for anybody who is too clear-eyed and certain about their cause. Life is full of uncertainty and new information is always coming at us.

So, keep those corrections flowing into YSDA Tower. The editorial team here appreciates them.