The Normal Editing And Consulting Process

When I think of the “editing process” I think things like checking for grammar errors, spelling errors, factual errors, that sort of thing.

Silly me.

According to the “Hope And Change-All’s Book of Modern Editing” (University of Chicago Press, First Edition, 2008) this process in fact means “re-write the report to support your desired outcome regardless of what the ‘independent experts’ who wrote the report actually said”

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

Surely there could not possibly have been an intentional attempt to mislead the public?

I think things could have been communicated better.

One Response to “The Normal Editing And Consulting Process”

1. Clive says:

   November 11, 2010 at 1:41 am

   Just another future Supreme Court judge hard at work….