Jones and Pierce and my slight disagreement

no argument from me there.

 

Sorry to have phrased it like that. I think you spun Pierce's argument that great writers should continue to be great writers and not always get moved "up" to editor, and took that to mean he thought great writers couldn't be great editors.

I just don't think that's what he meant.

My thought on the matter: A lot of times reporters are looked to first when management positions come open, but I've seen a number of the best managers of sports staff come from the copy desk. Reporters-turned-editors so often have an itch to return to their roots.

 

We have an editor, formerly a "star" reporter, who on occasion comes in close to deadline, rips up everything, and sprinkles in his own "scoops." Pierce is bang on here.

 

Our editor was never a star reporter and does the same thing. This is why I believe it's important to have an editor who understands how the desk functions.

 

Dave Eggers is the best editor I have ever done work for and I'm also firmly in the camp of him being one of the finest writers out there.

But I also understand Pierce's point because people like Eggers are few and far between.His greater point about latching on to a good editor and not letting him or her go I think is one that is largely and terribly true.

There's something about the editing process, whether you're cranking out dailies or weekenders or pulling out long form for magazines, that can leave one very bruised. Editing takes a gentle touch. Sadly, many editors take a tack that what you write is their copy that they can do with what they please. From a writers standpoint, nothing can or will make you angrier, particularly when mistakes get edited in, or with some pieces — short or long — are very carefully constructed and when an editor pulls a string out, the whole thing falls apart.

You also have editors who take the position they are better writers than the reporters cranking out the copy and that can be a pretty shitty place to be.

 

YOU'RE HIRED!