glitches

I wrote recently that reporters don't get the benefit of as much editing as they used to. Day by day, the Columbia Journalism Review kindly points to shortcomings in their stories. But, though fewer in numbers than formerly, editors do still exist and do still seek to improve the writings that come to them.

Instances:

1. Gawker recently called attention to a production error that both shows some of the sloppiness revealed in CJR alerts and shows the editorial blue pencil at its best. Yesterday morning Gawker's Hamilton Nolan gave us
A Washington Post Story With All the Editor’s Notes In It in which he shows a WaPo piece picked up from the Louisville Courier Journal containing both the writer's text and the editor's ideas for strengthening it. It was, as my son points out, a CJ web editor's inattention which let the story appear prematurely. And it was a CJ copy editor's carefulness that is shown in the thoughtful interpolations (IN CAPS) throughout the text.

Not long after the Gawker piece showed up, Betsy Rothstein picked up the story in a post called Editing Disaster Alert:WaPo Botches Pap Smear Story on mediabistro's FishbowlDC blog.

Both accounts are worth reading, as is the CJR's take on the matter — A Glimpse into WaPo’s Editing Practices — by Joel Meares, which came out Tuesday morning this week.

It's kind of interesting that Betsy Rothstein and Joel Meares both do good work, but, whether by oversight or design, she does not mention the Nolan piece and Meares does not mention hers.

2. Not long ago Matt Seaton of the Guardian, wrote a blog post showing another side of the editorial contribution to newspaper writing: Abraham Lincoln's 1861 address, abridged. While preparing for publication Eric Foner's article on the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's inauguration speech Seaton searched for a copy of the speech so that he could link to it. The one he found, at University of Virginia's Miller Centre of Public Affairs, did not contain text which Foner quoted and, checking further, he found that the Miller Center text was considerably shorter than the original. (I've checked the two and found the Miller Center text to have been a third shorter.)

Because they deal with slavery, Seaton thought the omissions might have been intentional, but, on querying the Center, he received a reply saying the Bowlderization was caused by a "technical glitch." The reply states: "We recently moved much of the content on our website from an old content management system to a new one. A programming error in the script used to migrate the content failed to anticipate certain HTML tags, so the software removed them and all content in between them. This caused entire paragraphs to be deleted in several speeches." (The Miller Center response is given in an update to Seaton's article.)

There's a debate about the excisions in the comments to Seaton's post. Seaton himself is satisfied with the Miller Center explanation and withdraws his suspicion that someone deliberately removed references to slavery as a main cause of the emerging conflict between South and North. However a commenter jokes that the html code which choked the new CMS wasn't benign: "Yes I too am reassured that the University of Virginia has fully explained the 'technical glitch' involving html tags that excised parts of Lincolns address. Presumably it was the fault of the little known <remove reference to slavery>\</remove reference to slavery> tag?"

Personally, I have a problem with the explanation that the Miller Center gives. If you search the Wayback machine for instances of Lincoln's speech in the Center's web pages, you find two in 2010, four in 2009, and two in 2008. The Center says a programming error caused the deletions during "a recent move" to a new CMS. I didn't check them all, but the version of the speech that Wayback captured in October 2008 is missing the deleted text and it seems to me October 2008 doesn't qualify as "recent."

There's also evidence that the CMS used in 2008 was very different from the one used now. You can see this in the Wayback-captured html coding of the versions of the speech given on the Center's web site in both 2008 and 2011. The code does not name the CMS used in either case, but, given the differences in coding it seems very unlikely to be the same one.

This is the coded first sentence of the speech in the 2008 version:

<h4>Transcript</h4><p><p>Fellow citizens of the United States:</p>
<p>In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office." </p>

This is the same sentence as it appears in the current version:

<div id="transcript"><h4>Transcript</h4><p> </p><div id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;">Fellow citizens of the United States:</div><div id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;">In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."</div>

It's possible that there was yet another (pre-2008) CMS and that the programming mistake occured while moving the speech from an older CMS to the CMS that was used in 2008. And it's possible that the Miller Center didn't wish to explain that they've upgraded their CMS yet another time since the "technical glitch" occured. Possible, yes; but it doesn't seem likely to me.

Here are five paragraphs in the version that currently appears:

I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

They are reduced to only two in the version on the Wayback machine from October 16, 2008:

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all paralel cases, by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there, in this view, any assault upon the court, or the judges. It is a duty, from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs, if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

I will venture to add that, to me, the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take, or reject, propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such, as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution---which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government, shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express, and irrevocable.