He did it, so I don't have to.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:23 pm

I can't imagine what the excuse was for an editor changing "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" in an opera review that had nothing to do with abortion, but whoever you are, well: Thanks for all your help. (Tom Mangan at Prints the Chaff)[ March 04, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:34 pm

Well, let me throw a little of the blame back onto the
reporter (damn those classical reviewers, spewing out all that incomprehensible crap that we philistines have to plow through):While the change was wrong, the reporter should have known that "pro-life" has taken on another meaning and should have recast the sentence. I can almost see the scenario here: Late turd of a review comes in, overwrought copy editor sees the loaded phrase and changes it out of habit.No good, of course, but the writer should never have used 'pro-life."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:16 pm

Let me invoke the Bridge Column Rule here: We "philistines" had better understand an opera review when we're editing it, or work with the reviewer to made it understandable.
Regarding the use of "pro-life" in the review: I can't find serious fault with it. As desirable as it might be to blame the writer for an editor's screw-up, it won't fly in this case.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:48 am

LA Times Says Opera 'Pro-Life' Not 'Anti-Abortion'
Thu Mar 4, 6:40 PM ET
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - This might not end 'til the plus-sized lady sings. A Los Angeles Times music critic who wrote that a Richard Strauss opera was "pro-life" -- meaning a celebration of life -- was stunned to pick up the paper and find his review changed by a literal-minded copy editor to read "anti-abortion." Music critic Mark Swed said the copy editor was adhering to a strict Times policy banning the phrase "pro-life" as offensive to people who support abortion, and didn't seem to realize that the epic Strauss opera "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" had nothing to do with that politically charged issue. "Its about children who aren't born yet screaming to be born -- not abortion," Swed said. "Somebody who didn't quite get it got a little bit too politically correct ... and we had a little breakdown in communications." The Times ran a correction the following day, Feb. 25, irking Swed further because it suggested that the mistake was his. The paper then issued a second correction making clear that he was not responsible. But the second note violated another Times policy -- this one against identifying the person at fault -- which prompted a memo from Jamie Gold, the paper's readers representative. That memo, which first surfaced on the L.A. Observed Web site, admonished reporters: "Corrections will not assign blame" Swed said he was satisfied with the second correction and gratified that top-level editors moved quickly when the mistake was discovered. "Every editor I talked to felt that this shouldn't have happened," the eight-year veteran said. "This was just one person who didn't quite get it going too much by the rule book. It's a bit of a tempest in a tea pot." Last June, Times Executive Editor John Carroll circulated a memo criticizing one of his reporters for a pro-abortion bias in a story about the issue out of Texas. "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" ("The Woman Without a Shadow") has one of the most confusing plots in opera. It tells the story of a half-human, half-divine princess who lacks a shadow -- a symbol for fertility -- and needs to get one to prevent her husband from turning to stone.

Testy Copy Editors

He did it, so I don't have to.

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links