To me the point of the message here is that we don;'t leave it to the editor
to device an attention grabbing header, but do it ourselves. My experience
is that academe has a steep learning curve here, there seems to be a
penchant for long explanations, where the message is lost in too many words.
rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: Disability-Research <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: Editorial licence
> Hi everyone!
>
> I had a personal experience expose about the Virginia Rehabilitation
Center
> for the Blind published in the Washington Post a few years ago. The
> editorial board ran it under the title "Of Human Blindness: I wanted to
> learn, they taught me the dark side of charity." I was furious when I saw
it
> the morning it hit the streets.
>
> I called my writing mentor who told me that this was a delicate situation
and
> an opportunity to educate as well. He suggested that I call my editor and
> thank him for publishing the piece, say some nice things about it and tell
> him KINDLY that the title perpetuated some stereotypes about blindness
that I
> had highlighted within the piece. He really understood my explanation and
> thanked me for telling him. He said that he would bring it up at the next
> editorial board meeting and that they would be more sensitive to the use
of
> language.
>
> They are in the business of grabbing the readers' attention quickly and
often
> use recognizable references to do so. It seems to me that, like other
> advocacy efforts, we can educate without alienating. After all, we
certainly
> don't want to burn our bridges by pissing off publishers. And, we can
> continue to educate, too!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Beth
>
> Beth Omansky Gordon
> The George Washington University
> Washington, DC, USA
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|