If you pay really careful attention, you'll notice that I occasionally soften the language of the pieces that appear here before submitting them to the Huffington Post. I have no issue being a profanity-spouting firebrand on this site, my internet home, but when it comes to HuffPo I generally try to temper my thoughts a little simply because of the amount of exposure the columns there tend to get and generate. The overall tone of the material doesn't change; I just go out of my way to be at least a little more dignified.
There have been a couple of times, however, that the blogging gods at HuffPo have actually asked me to edit something I've submitted -- or have asked for my permission to allow them to edit it themselves. Generally, I go along with it because, once again, as long as the point of the piece remains intact I couldn't really care less whether there are one or two fewer, as Jim Kirk would say, "colorful metaphors."
But with that in mind -- and we all know how I have no desire to bite the hand that feeds me some decent press -- I invite you to take a look at the way yesterday's little column on Keith Olbermann currently appears in the Huffington Post. It's, well, interesting, to see what changes needed to be made in order for it to be approved for publication. It was submitted without the Maddow coda, so you can discount that right off the bat. But some of the other edits -- which for the most part I agreed to, by the way -- they're pretty noticeable.
Remember, what's the one rule of writing for the Huffington Post?
No comments:
Post a Comment