>Jacqui Gruttadauria posted:
>
>~~http://familyfun.go.com/raisingkids/baby/care/feature/dony59wobottle/
>
>[snip]
>formula. unfortunately for the author, many of the moms at my board felt the
>same, as someone did an online search and posted her name, address and home
>phone. i imagine she's got the idea by now as thousands of mothers from
>all over
>the world access the board...
This Disney article was discussed on LN back in July, at which time I
posted the following (July 28):
>But, to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, her article may have
>been drastically edited from the copy she submitted. Consequently, it may
>be best to direct comments to the editor who is ultimately responsible for
>content anyway (or should be).
>
>However, as Rachel already observed, FamilyFun.com doesn't go out of its
>way to facilitate that. A convoluted search, which ultimately involved
>Google (I love those guys), led to the following page:
><http://family.go.com/utilities/global/feature/WriteUs/>. Emily Smith is
>listed as the editor-in-chief of FamilyFun.com (a separate entity from
>FamilyFun magazine, by the way).
I'm a bit horrified that people might be harassing the writer over the
Disney article. When Disney purchases a freelance article, they buy all
rights. (This is explained on the website.) That means they can do anything
they like with it, including completely warping the submitted piece. (They
phrase it more nicely on the website.) There's absolutely nothing the
writer can do about it no matter how appalled she might be at the drivel
that's presented as her effort.
I don't know if that's what happened here, but I do know that the ultimate
responsibility for the article rests with the editorial staff. They're the
ones who hired the writer, they're the ones who are distributing the
article. If her article was awful from the get-go, then the editorial staff
needs to know that she's incompetent (i.e., don't hire her again) and they
need to realize they dropped the ball in publishing her work. And, if the
article was good to start with, then they *really* dropped the ball in
altering it. Heads should roll.
I'm sorry to wander so far off topic here, but I think protests need to be
aimed at the proper people. The writer, good or bad, has no power here. How
much good would it do taking her to task over it?
regards,
Julia, with stomach acid still churning about the drivelization of some of
her own articles written in tender youth with such touching trust and faith
in the wisdom of editors ... ACK, ACK, ACK!!!!
Julia R. Barrett
Freelance Science Writer
Madison, Wisconsin
608-238-8409; [log in to unmask]
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
