“The Economist has done an amazing job of editing all of its writers to sound like they’re the same person — a wry British know-it-all.”
I like listening to The Economist weekly audio edition as a NPR substitute. It’s not literally a single voice; they employ 3 or 4 readers for each addition but they all come across (enjoyably) as British know-it alls
From my experience with editors as an op-ed writer:
--My most frequent frustration is with the headlines they come up with, missing the main point or, now that online publications often begin with a summary paragraph before linking to the actual text, botching the main points of a piece;
--But, if editors tell me they don't understand a point, I'll concede that the average reader won't either, and I'll add clarifications where needed.
Noah doesn't mention self-editing. I rarely trust my first drafts and will set aside a piece for a few hours or overnight, before reading it with an editor's eye, and then clarifying or reorganizing as needed. As my (old-fashioned) journalism professor used to tell us: Writing is re-writing.
Great article, Noah. I love the insider viewpoint, and I agree with you. As a consumer of this stuff, I am looking forward to the day where all "volume" op-ed writers are independent. The ones that suck would fall off the edge of the cliff while the good ones would prosper like you have. It would also be better for the reader. I like reading Paul Krugman, David Brooks, and Russ Duhat in the Times, but I would like reading them much better on Substack, for the reasons you mention. I'm sure others like their other writers, too, and they would do fine independently. That would leave the Op-Ed section to guest writers like elected officials, Oprah, CEO's, candidates, disgraced former RNC committee chairs or whomever that is involved with a story to provide a unique viewpoint that a journalist may not be able to provide. I'd rather the Times focus on providing me all the news fit to print, accurately and objectively. It may still be the battering ram of the national liberal conversation, but it would be less in-your-face about it. Thanks for what you do, Noah. I read you and Matt regularly over my morning coffee. If you run into Professor Krugman, please encourage him to jump ship.
When you mentioned the (delete-block) error I thought you were going to talk about what I call a "wordo" instead of a typo.
When I first started using the word star word processor in about 1988, I loved being able to just let it roll, knowing that I could go back and make Corrections without scribbling all over a yellow pad. But one drawback was that I would make a small change that would change the tense of a sentence and and then I'd miss another word that needed to be changed to match that change.
Your points on the (lack of) value of LLMs to writing are true in my experience, and especially about voice, that most important and subtle aspect of writing. So far I've seen nothing that suggests LLMs can create maintain a consistent writing (or chatting) voice. Historical or literary character AIs like the ones from Khanmigo or deepAI all sound like AI generated art portraits look. They seem like eager fifth grade history teachers putting on a costume: pedantic, eager to please, and unable to get any deeper than an encyclopedia-level answer. I'm not sure with a generative book like Cowan's GOAT, but it seems like he wrote the content, and it is the form that is new. Anyone have examples of LLMs successfully generating a consistent voice?
That's interesting that you describe Matthew Yglesias's voice as "dry and snarky". One of the things I find that I like about his writing on Substack is that he is actually quite earnest, and doesn't seem very snarky at all. When I see his tweets, I'm always much less happy, because they do seem to be on the snarky side (which I think is a feature of the medium).
Another great feature here is that readers get to have a bit of back and forth with you in the comments. And also you get to write the title of your post instead of someone writing a clickbait title that the original author would not have chosen.
The first thing that comes to mind to describe your voice is "cheerful", which maybe seems dismissive, but, like, your posts almost always make my day better. I am a tech optimist but a bit of a social/political pessimist. (I'm still pretty worried about the core argument of MattY's "American Democracy is Doomed" essay from a while back, based on Juan Linz's work.) Focusing on the bright side helps one to get through the day, and maintain hope that "doing the work" will actually lead to a better future. Politics is a tedious slog. "The slow boring of hard boards." It's easier to keep trudging along when you can lift your eyes and see the goal, now and again.
I’m not sure if this is the same topic, but the gap between the article title (which the editor or whoever chooses) and the article itself can often do a disservice to the writer.
I wonder if it would have been difficult for you to learn on the fly without an editor early in your career. Is it possible that the utility of an editor declines as the writer becomes more knowledgeable but that it's important early on?
As an editor of opinion pieces (though primarily a copyeditor, which gets me something of a pass), I'm going to disagree. If the reading public saw some of the stuff that doesn't get to them, or that doesn't get to them in the form it eventually does, there'd be more appreciation for editors. Granted, I'm thinking about this in aggregate terms; it's certainly possible for an editor to have a negative impact on an article. Some more thoughts on copyediting: https://www.splicetoday.com/writing/meditations-of-a-copy-editor
While I also think your remark about editors often removing voice is spot on, I do think this is going a bit far. The main problem I see is not that we have op-ed editors, but that we have plenty of bad editors, who rarely add value to what goes through them and unnecessarily stifle the voice of op-ed writers.
Thus, I think this post is shifting attention away from the real issue. What we should be doing is not removing op-ed editors, but rather look into why do we have so many poor examples, and what we can do to remedy that.
I strongly believe that having a second opinion on a piece is important, as one can easily fall into a pattern, not seeing the big picture. I am not saying this necessarily applies to you, as you don't take yourself too seriously, and you are capable of looking at your pieces critically. My point is that this is a skill that the majority of people do not have. Of course, the ideal situation would be to have an editor who works with op-ed writers, not over their head, which looks like is not the case at present.
“The Economist has done an amazing job of editing all of its writers to sound like they’re the same person — a wry British know-it-all.”
I like listening to The Economist weekly audio edition as a NPR substitute. It’s not literally a single voice; they employ 3 or 4 readers for each addition but they all come across (enjoyably) as British know-it alls
From my experience with editors as an op-ed writer:
--My most frequent frustration is with the headlines they come up with, missing the main point or, now that online publications often begin with a summary paragraph before linking to the actual text, botching the main points of a piece;
--But, if editors tell me they don't understand a point, I'll concede that the average reader won't either, and I'll add clarifications where needed.
Noah doesn't mention self-editing. I rarely trust my first drafts and will set aside a piece for a few hours or overnight, before reading it with an editor's eye, and then clarifying or reorganizing as needed. As my (old-fashioned) journalism professor used to tell us: Writing is re-writing.
Great article, Noah. I love the insider viewpoint, and I agree with you. As a consumer of this stuff, I am looking forward to the day where all "volume" op-ed writers are independent. The ones that suck would fall off the edge of the cliff while the good ones would prosper like you have. It would also be better for the reader. I like reading Paul Krugman, David Brooks, and Russ Duhat in the Times, but I would like reading them much better on Substack, for the reasons you mention. I'm sure others like their other writers, too, and they would do fine independently. That would leave the Op-Ed section to guest writers like elected officials, Oprah, CEO's, candidates, disgraced former RNC committee chairs or whomever that is involved with a story to provide a unique viewpoint that a journalist may not be able to provide. I'd rather the Times focus on providing me all the news fit to print, accurately and objectively. It may still be the battering ram of the national liberal conversation, but it would be less in-your-face about it. Thanks for what you do, Noah. I read you and Matt regularly over my morning coffee. If you run into Professor Krugman, please encourage him to jump ship.
“Facts are pretty much the same thing no matter who’s reporting them…”. Sweet and old-fashioned, and rightfully how it should be. Sadly rare, though.
When you mentioned the (delete-block) error I thought you were going to talk about what I call a "wordo" instead of a typo.
When I first started using the word star word processor in about 1988, I loved being able to just let it roll, knowing that I could go back and make Corrections without scribbling all over a yellow pad. But one drawback was that I would make a small change that would change the tense of a sentence and and then I'd miss another word that needed to be changed to match that change.
Your points on the (lack of) value of LLMs to writing are true in my experience, and especially about voice, that most important and subtle aspect of writing. So far I've seen nothing that suggests LLMs can create maintain a consistent writing (or chatting) voice. Historical or literary character AIs like the ones from Khanmigo or deepAI all sound like AI generated art portraits look. They seem like eager fifth grade history teachers putting on a costume: pedantic, eager to please, and unable to get any deeper than an encyclopedia-level answer. I'm not sure with a generative book like Cowan's GOAT, but it seems like he wrote the content, and it is the form that is new. Anyone have examples of LLMs successfully generating a consistent voice?
That's interesting that you describe Matthew Yglesias's voice as "dry and snarky". One of the things I find that I like about his writing on Substack is that he is actually quite earnest, and doesn't seem very snarky at all. When I see his tweets, I'm always much less happy, because they do seem to be on the snarky side (which I think is a feature of the medium).
Another great feature here is that readers get to have a bit of back and forth with you in the comments. And also you get to write the title of your post instead of someone writing a clickbait title that the original author would not have chosen.
The first thing that comes to mind to describe your voice is "cheerful", which maybe seems dismissive, but, like, your posts almost always make my day better. I am a tech optimist but a bit of a social/political pessimist. (I'm still pretty worried about the core argument of MattY's "American Democracy is Doomed" essay from a while back, based on Juan Linz's work.) Focusing on the bright side helps one to get through the day, and maintain hope that "doing the work" will actually lead to a better future. Politics is a tedious slog. "The slow boring of hard boards." It's easier to keep trudging along when you can lift your eyes and see the goal, now and again.
Your dead right on ‘voice’ but what about an editor who checks for possible libel? Do they get to keep their job?
I’m not sure if this is the same topic, but the gap between the article title (which the editor or whoever chooses) and the article itself can often do a disservice to the writer.
I wonder if it would have been difficult for you to learn on the fly without an editor early in your career. Is it possible that the utility of an editor declines as the writer becomes more knowledgeable but that it's important early on?
As an editor of opinion pieces (though primarily a copyeditor, which gets me something of a pass), I'm going to disagree. If the reading public saw some of the stuff that doesn't get to them, or that doesn't get to them in the form it eventually does, there'd be more appreciation for editors. Granted, I'm thinking about this in aggregate terms; it's certainly possible for an editor to have a negative impact on an article. Some more thoughts on copyediting: https://www.splicetoday.com/writing/meditations-of-a-copy-editor
While I also think your remark about editors often removing voice is spot on, I do think this is going a bit far. The main problem I see is not that we have op-ed editors, but that we have plenty of bad editors, who rarely add value to what goes through them and unnecessarily stifle the voice of op-ed writers.
Thus, I think this post is shifting attention away from the real issue. What we should be doing is not removing op-ed editors, but rather look into why do we have so many poor examples, and what we can do to remedy that.
I strongly believe that having a second opinion on a piece is important, as one can easily fall into a pattern, not seeing the big picture. I am not saying this necessarily applies to you, as you don't take yourself too seriously, and you are capable of looking at your pieces critically. My point is that this is a skill that the majority of people do not have. Of course, the ideal situation would be to have an editor who works with op-ed writers, not over their head, which looks like is not the case at present.
fantastic as always
We haven’t even talked about headlines. Editors are notorious for bad headlines.