As much as I sympathize with Ms. Eden, I'd be furious as an artist/wordsmith if someone alterred my work without permission. Also, if I were an editor-in-chief, I couldn't have my editors taking such liberties.

Did it seem to others that the writer was more upset that Dawn changed her "slant" than her text? What an obvious example of bias.

I gotta say it:

1) She apparently blogged on company time.

2) She deliberately altered another person's article with text that, while not opinion, definitely did change the tone of the original piece a bit.

She may have deserved to be fired. I understand why she did what she did, and agree with her point of view, but if it was me where I work I'd be fired, too.

Yeah...the fact that I'm sympathetic to her outlook cannot, for me, disguise the fact that what she did was an outrageous, fireable offense. I don't care if it was in the service of "offering more perspective," even on a subject where I think more balance is way the hell overdue. The fact is that it was flagrantly unprofessional. I know I'd flip out if a line editor took it upon him or herself to alter my writing for content purposes without so much as consulting me.

Your point about the Post being a sham-conservative paper may well be true. But that stands separate from this issue, I think.

You know, I've written some freelance online journalism. It gets edited. The tone of the piece may get slightly altered. Often it's an improvement; but usually I prefer it the way I first wrote it. Them's the breaks. I'm just glad they print my stuff.

If I were a full-time reporter I might talk to the editors about it but it's hardly worth quitting or getting someone fired over. It seems pretty naive for this reporter to get all snippy because someone added a few clarifying facts to her piece. She did her job; the copy editor did hers.

See-Dubya, of course your stuff will get edited. But it gets edited by the editor responsible for oversight, NOT by a line editor whose function is to correct grammar and spelling after the article has gone through that vetting already. THAT is what was terribly unprofessional about this. It would be the military equivalent of a private usurping the command powers of sergeant, without his knowledge.

You guys raise fair questions.

Admittedly, I am compromised on the issue.

But-- on the blogging from work thing, I don't know how well that's been established, and further, I hear from Dawn Eden herself that she was encouraged by at least one superior to blog from work so long as it was during down-time.

The "offense" here seems not to be where she was blogging from, but *what* she was blogging. The content is what pissed people off. And I don't see that as fair.

Yes, an employer can fire you for anything, as we all know. But "Can" does not equal "should."

As to the actual edit-- yes, as a copy-editor, she was charged with editing for clarity and grammar and such, and this sort of "balance" editing should have been left to a real editor, not a copy or line editor. I think she overstepped her authority here a bit.

But only a bit. Let's face it, these were minor errata, and they did in fact "clarify" what had been implied anyway (i.e., the embryos died).

I think she should have been scolded and maybe even suspended a week without pay.

But let's face it-- her firing was due to office politics, and the office politics here were all about abortion politics. The reporterette in question went bananas because some very minor "pro-life" clarifications were put into her piece, and she couldn't have such filth running under her byline.

The penalty just seems grossly disproportionate to the offense.

Ace, thanks for highlighting the story. My boss had specifically told me, as well as everyone else on the copy desk, that we were free to use the Internet when we did not have an assignment. On the day I was fired, he said to the office manager that my blogging had never gotten in the way of my work, because I always dropped it when an assignment came up. As he told the Observer, he did not want to see me fired.

There are some inaccuracies in the Observer piece, which I've detailed on my blog.

I have to agree with most of the commentators here and not with you ace. While the issue of blogging at the office may have been the excuse given for firing, the firing does seem justified in light of the "edits" made.

The edits were not minor errata, and the so called "clarity" you think they provided, only slanted the story to a position that the author and the editors didn't want but that Ms. Eden did. The editors of the post have the right to slant the story in any direction they want, Ms. Eden does not.

I do think that the leak to WWD was very vindictive.

Jeff B., you seem to be more familiar with the internal workings of a newspaper than I am. Still, I stand by the fact that a reporter/writer surrenders control of a piece to the editorial process.

Another analogy would be writing a screenplay on spec. When you shake hands on the deal with a producer, he'll probably take input from all kinds of sources and hire a few writers to tinker with your story. What goes up on screen is likely nothing like what you originally sold--and probably suffered from having input from a dozen different sources, one of whom might be the director's pool man's coke dealer's nanny. Again, them's the breaks. Writing for hire carries risks of editing you don't like, and I think this reporter is being a prima donna.

I can see the editor being angry that Dawn overstepped her authority in this case (which there doesn't seem to be much dispute that she did). It's the reporter's overreaction which I think deserves a hearty "grow up". Especially since the new details added both information and pathos to a tragic story about women with terminal cancer having babies. No harm, no foul.

Chickpea:

I don't agree that this was a firing matter, but then I think people have to do bad things repeatedly, or something really really stupid to deserve firing.

It was certainly unprofessional of Dawn to make the changes that she did, which were clearly intended to alter the overall tone of the piece in the direction of her beliefs. It wasn't her job to make those kind of changes.
The offense is paricularly bad as the article went out under someone else's byline, rather than just an anonymous report.

The change that I suspect I would find most objectionable, were I to be a pro-choice reporter, is the bald insertion "One died". Clearly as a statement that's factually correct - I don't think anyone on any side of the argument denies that the collection of living cells that forms an implanted embryo consists of, well, living cells and as such can die. The use of the word in this contex, however, tends to grant the embryo a similar status to a seperate person, rather than the collection of tissue which the writer may have preferred to depict it as.

Having said that, all that it really warranted was a stern talking to and a formal warning. If it happened again, then fire her. I have sympathy for Dawn, but you can't let your beliefs get in the way of doing your job. If your job requires doing things you find objectionable, you need to find a different job.

See-Dubya, it's clear we disagree about the nature of this offense; your analogy with spec-scripts is inaccurate because that's specifically written into the contract, whereas no reporter expects a copy editor to be adding to or altering the text they had agreed with their supervising editor upon.

But I think we can both agree that the "reporterette" acted like a immature child. The e-mail she sent Dawn was hilariously over-the-top and her pitching of an extended fit (as opposed to being initially incensed, which she had a right to be) reflects badly upon her.

(N.B. My former job was an editing one, which is why I'm very sensitive to such concerns.)

Oh, and Ace, how are you compromised on this issue? Is Dawn a friend of the real-world Ace?

Yes, I've met Dawn and consider her a RW friend.

Just because her clarifications to the story happened to fall in line with her beliefs DOES NOT mean that the effect was intended. And while it may have been a "bald insertion", it certainly did clarify things. I know that my point may be a bit naive, but the point that most others are making requires one to believe that just because her clarifications fall inline with her beliefs, her motive for insertion was ideologically motivated.

That's irrelevant. She shouldn't be inserting ANYTHING, except perhaps a missing indefinite article. It was not her place in any way to make clarifying insertions.

By the way, I feel bad, like I'm beating up on Dawn. I certainly don't want to do that, so I guess I'll let this be my last comment. I've read her blog before and have enjoyed it. I also think the WWD incident was pure, undiluted sleaze, and I hope she gets the apology and correction she deserves from them.

Can we catch Ward Churchill blogging on company time and fire him?

Was this a common practice for Dawn? How frequently did she make editorial changes like this? What im asking is- was she fired because she made changes above her pay grade or was she fired for the content of her changes? If she has made similar changes to stories before and it was expected of her then we know she was fired for her political views and or blogging. But if this was the first time she had made changes to this extent then she may have over stepped her bounds and deserved to be disciplined. How about it Dawn? Was this part of your job description?

Am I assuming something here that's not true? Dawn's changes had to get past at least one other editor, who would have seen and at least tacitly approved her edits to the article, before it went to print. Otherwise, she wasn't merely a "line editor", else she woldn't have had the final look at the article before it went to print.

This also appears to be the one and only time she's done somethig like this. So why wasn't she disciplined or counseled or something similar? For what other offense can someone get fired at her formal paper for a single offense?

Or do I have the circumstances here.

Also, Dawn's blog appears to be down entirely.

Dawn needs to add a few more details to the story i think.

Jeff B, of course it's relevant. As an editor part of her job is to clarify, no? I mean come on, is inserting the clarification phrase "one died", to clear up the implication of death, indicative of some kind of bias??? It's a fact, and she provided clarification.

After reading about 20 comments on this topic I am surprised a little about the theme of the comments. There is a lot of commentary about editors and line editors and a lot of other stuff in the world of journalism that I don't understand. But I was impressed by the way that Dawn was able to subtly effect the impact of the article. The power of editors is what makes me so circumspect when I read anything in the main stream media. I am not arguing with Dawn's point of view or with the ethics of the journalist's world, all I am saying is that it is the responsiblity of the consumer to be sceptical of the product that the media offers.

I've seen this kerfuffle mentioned here and a couple of other places, and the defenses offered for Dawn's actions confound me, as does her blog coming into play in the matter.

She's was a copy editor, period. The only leeway she has when it comes to altering any article's content beyond spelling is the Post's in-house style book, and possibly "Strunk & White's Elements of Style." The only person with any business mucking around with the content after the article is turned in by the reporter is the editor who issued the assignment.

I run a small vanity press/publishing outfit. Copy editors are a dime a dozen and interchangeable even for an operation as small as mine. At the Post, they are probably considered glorified chimps; critical thinking about content is not part of the job description. You clean up the spelling and such and send it on its way. If someone can't handle that there are thousands of people wandering around with Eng Lit. BAs that can be plugged into the machine.

It sounds as if Ace's real point in question is being overlooked. Seems to me the question is whether or not Ms. Eden would have gotten fired if the article had originally had a pro-life spin and she inserted a few pro-choice statements into it. That would have been overstepping her editorial authority, too...but would she have gotten fired over it?

Later,
bbeck

What's an RW friend?

"Real world." Although I guess I blew it; the correct abbreviation is "RL" for real life, right?

I guess I meant real-world/right-wing.

Ah. I thought it might mean right-wing.