Originally Posted by chickdigger802
huh. I'm not too familiar about journalism, but EIC's are suppose to just change scores because it doesn't align with HIS opinions? It doesn't seem like a simple 'the score doesn't reflect the writing (which was pretty glowing)' here. Aren't reviews suppose to be subjective? Or are freelancers and writers on TA just ghost writing Hodapp's review?
Why even have the authors name on the reviews when the review might not even really be his/her's? It's a bit odd to make it seem like each author has their own voice even though it's really just Hodapp's.
Ok, just for the record, here's how the editorial process at just about any publication on any topic at all works: writers "submit" their work (these can include either freelance or staff.) The editor reads through it and either:
-accepts the work as is.
-suggests edits or asks for rewrites.
-rejects the work outright.
Now, there are often large grey areas and degrees of editorial input between all of the above outcomes, but in no instance is the editor not a part of the process.
As with all professions in life, there are good editors and not so good. Great ones and downright awful. None of that is particularly relevant here. It sounds to me that what actually occurred was that a piece made it to publication without having undergone the editorial process at all due to human error. The interesting issue (the only issue there is really) is whether it should have been pulled or allowed to stand. (What if this happens in a print publication?) This is debatable, and there are good arguments that can be made for either side, but this probably isn't the place to do it.