Attribution versus Actuality

Tomorrow in the Technician. A story runs under my name. Russell Witham (Correspondent)..
From there on, the article is about 40 percent mine. I say this because, while the intellectual property is all mine, my editor chopped the story down and rearranged it into a totally unrecognizable mesh. I guess this is his job. But I also now understand why writers fight with their editors. I thought my story was nearly perfect, not a thing wrong with it. Apparently I didn't engage my audience quickly enough (am I engaging now.. huh.. huh..), nor did I have enough full quotes.... Stop using facts, use quotes... and lastly, I didn't talk enough about campus. Fair enough on the last point. But I know my audience, I know they are uneducated on this issue. That is why I volunteered to write the article in the first place. Instead what has been attributed to me is a combination of quotes, a blip about the actual issue and a segment about the rally.

I have to admit. This really pissed me off. If I wanted to just interview people and give their thoughts I would have. I sought to inform and tie it home. I guess I just didn't do it the 'Technician Way'.

Do I hope my article will inform some people on the issue? Yes. Was this the article I wanted? No. Will I try to make sure none of my intellectual property gets cut out next time? Yes.

Its not that I don't like Chris (the News editor). I think he is a cool guy. The problem is that I would rather not have my well thought out flow be chopped into news. I guess this is why I signed up to do editorials and not news stories. I like my writing to be... mine.