Destroying A Writer’s Credibility
See end of the article for updates.
Every week, I write an article for Student Life, the main campus newspaper at Washington University. The overwhelming majority of the staff is quite liberal. There is, as I understand it, one other non-liberal columnist, and his articles tend to be quite a bit less controversial. Last week however, the other non-liberal found that his column had been substantively altered before running, and he had been given no notice of the changes. His editor, the same as mine, said that he hadn’t made the changes to the column, but rather that our Senior Forum Editor, Kate Gaertner, had. She claims the changes were a matter of length, but this obviously false. While the length was cut, most of the changes made involved either the removal of contextually-necessary facts or a major softening of tone. Comparing the two versions, there is no question that the one ran was inferior, and a discredit to the author’s name.
So imagine my displeasure when this week I opened up a copy of the paper to find that I was Gaertner’s latest victim (something she confirmed via email after getting wind of my reaction). The old editors, whose term ended in April, never once made a substantive change to any of my articles, instead only making minor grammar or syntax tweaks as they deemed necessary. While I happen to have disagreed with some of their alterations, I was never truly ashamed to see my name attached to the columns as printed. That is unfortunately no longer the case. On Wednesday, I submitted my latest article about Alberto Fujimori, and saw a disturbingly different version run on Friday.
Here’s how the two versions compare (excluding the sort of minor changes I didn’t find particularly bothersome):
Original:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70 year old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder and other less serious offenses by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima, and was given a 25 year prison sentence.
Altered:
This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70-year-old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima and sentenced to a 25-year prison sentence.
Changes:
Dropped “lesser charges” to make the sentence factually erroneous.
“Sentenced to a sentence” is terrible wording.
Original:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger, but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The veracity of this assertion still unproven to a sufficient extent that he deserved conviction aside, let us consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
Altered:
He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The degree to which he deserved conviction remains questionable, but aside from that, it is imperative that we consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.
Changes:
Massive meaning change. It goes from questioning the allegations themselves to how fair his convition was, and based on the rest of the article, it would seem to imply the question hinges upon his job in office. However, his excellence as President and his supposed guilt are largely different questions and I tried to separate them (still answering both), in the article.
Original:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980 (after a dozen years of military dictatorship), at which time the student-driven Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…Indeed, in 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed the practice enforced the capitalist system they so violently rejected.
Altered:
Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980, after a dozen years of military dictatorship. At this time, the student-driven, communist Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public…In 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed that voting enforced a capitalist system that they found despicable.
Changes:
Addition of the word communist before Maoist, which is not only redundant (being that it is a school of communist thinking), but unnecessary, in that anybody who is unfamiliar with Maoism had no business reading this article. And I should hope that WashU students have learned such basic information by this point in their lives.
Further, to find an ideology “despicable” is not problematic. The problem comes in the violence. By removing the “violently reject” phrase, the sentence is too mild in its approach to the Shining Path.
Original:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the massive communist insurgency.
Altered:
But the problems Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the communist insurgency.
Changes:
Removing massively again gives the Shining Path too little blame. They controlled large sections of the country, and for years were one of the most violent and threatening insurgencies anywhere in the world.
Original:
And, not only did he drain the national reserves, but he left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations, the cost increasing greatly through interest because he refused to service the massive debt he helped create.
Altered:
In addition to draining the national reserves, Garcia left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations.
Changes:
First, it makes Garcia seem less at fault, since it fails to make clear that he was the source for much of the debt. That becomes especially important given the essay’s conclusion. Beyond that, the refusal to pay debts is important, because again that caused great problems for Peru that Fujimori had to overcome. So this change ultimately serves to advance Garcia at the expense of Fujimori, which is unacceptable.
Original:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians, that the group or splinter factions of it have begun to once more function.
Altered:
It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians that the splinter factions of the Shining Path organization have begun to function once again.
Changes:
This sentence was rendered factually incorrect. While the splinter factions are most active, technically speaking there is still a Shining Path, which the original acknowledged and the altered version does not.
Original:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale by the crippling blow Fujimori delivered to the terrorist organization.
Altered:
Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale thanks to the measures taken by Fujimori.
Changes:
This again gives Fujimori too little credit. He didn’t passively make a few changes in law and happen to succeed. He instead put forth a massive military effort to crush the infrastructure of the organization, similar to what Sri Lanka’s government is doing to the LTTE.
Original:
That he also managed to save Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the very least.
Altered:
Moreover, the way Fujimori salvaged Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the least
Changes:
The original phrasing treats the preceeding as true, and commends him greatly for ALSO fixing the economy. The new phasing, coherence issues aside, suggests that even if the above is false, he saved the economy. In other words, it undermines my entire tone and defense.
Original:
But in view of the highly questionable nature of much of what he was found guilty of, and the exceptionally positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is entirely inappropriate.
Altered:
But in light of the questionable nature of the accusations brought against him, and the positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is inappropriate
Changes:
Again, the tone is muted by removing my zeal. Words like “highly” before questionable, “exceptionally” before positive, and “entirely” before inappropriate are important in conveying the utter absurdity of the conviction, which was the entire point of the article.
Original:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing.
Altered:
Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing so.
Changes:
Adding “so” at the end of the sentence is unnecessary, and makes the sentence less coherent.
So as you can see, the changes were extensive. And if she tries to claim it was a length issue (when I meet with her, which I’m scheduled to do), as she did with the other non-liberal columnist, that will not stand. Under the old staff, I ran four articles exceeding 850 words. I never had a hard word limit, just a suggestion that the be under 1000 words. Last week, my first article under the new editors ran uncensored and was 930 words. I was however warned about keeping future submissions under 800 words. The Fujimori piece, as submitted, was 666 words long. As ran, it was 647 words. I somehow doubt a 19 word reduction for a column well below the upper limit was needed. And certainly, such changes didn’t have to fundamentally alter my tone and argument, as Gaertner’s atrocious version did.
I find it concerning that in two weeks both non-liberal writers have suffered the same fate at the hands of an editor that has only been in charge since the start of April. Her predecessors has the good sense to treat non-liberal writers fairly, so as not to force their resignation and render the paper entirely devoid of any shred of ideological balance. While the paper was (and is) overwhelming liberal, those previously in charge were never so boldly hostile to differing opinions. I can’t imagine how Gaertner will attempt to justify this, or how further the quality of the paper will decline under her control, but I suppose I’ll find out soon enough.
UPDATE: I met with the Senior Forum Editor to discuss this issue. Some highlights:
* I presented her with a list of changes and notations of why they were unacceptable (see above). She tried to argue with one or two of them, generally conceded that I had a valid point, and apologized for the errors made.
* I noted that my biggest issue was that many of her alterations changed my tone, and this was completely inappropriate. She stated that she had intended as much, because being the only international issues writer for Student Life, she wanted to make sure the position taken wasn’t too extreme. I told her point blank that I’d soon tender my resignation than moderate my tone to whatever it was she regarded as acceptable.
* Evidently disinterested in that scenario, she then proposed that I move online only, which I quickly rejected. Print may be a dying media, but I refuse to be chased out of it for not towing the liberal line.
* Next, she proposed that every week she writes a response to my column to provide balance. I made clear to her that I cover a broad range of material, some it quite obscure. So, while I wouldn’t feel the need to stop her from responding to my articles, I wouldn’t feel compelled to go mainstream either. And that would translate to substantial additional research on her part, especially on occasions where the topic of choice pertains to my areas of expertise (Israel and the Balkans).
* She then asked about doing that just when bigger international issues arose. As I noted, I generally avoid such stories, but were I to address them, her rebuttal would be fine. I did however make clear that I objected to her efforts to essentially provide “balance” against my column and not the vast multitude of liberal columns. After all, I am one of two conservative writers total, and by far the more controversial and hawkish of the two (being that the other is a libertarian).
* Ultimately, it ended with her promising to only make grammatical changes in the future, with my continued contributions hinging upon her keeping her word.
I’m still extremely concerned about the direction this paper is headed given some of her answers/suggestions, as well as those issues detailed above, though for now I’ll continue writing. But, if ever again I should see my article so butchered, then said piece shall be my last.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
- Previously Unreleased: The Changing Nature of Dhimmitude and the Jizyah
- In Defense of the EDL
- How Liberal Politics Ruined Student Life
- My Resignation From Student Life
- Srebrenica: More Myth Than Massacre
