the editing process at the WSJ

In case you're curious, the editing process was good but thorough-- tied for second with book edits and behind the work I've done with academic journal articles.

My original op-ed piece went out two weeks ago. Craig Ladwig, with Indiana Policy Review, sent it out to the WSJ. The contact person there asked for the article on Tuesday of last week and I got it to them on Thursday afternoon. He held it for a week before we started into a relatively intense back-and-forth editing process. We were finished by noon on Friday. Well...he and I were finished. There was one more round of editing beyond him-- and unfortunately I didn't get to see that version until it was in print this morning.

I'm not sure I would have fought hard to keep any of the deletions. But the head editor dropped my reference to later demonstrations being "in the streets" (instead of in front of the governor's mansion)-- a small point, but now an inaccuracy.

In terms of policy, the head editor also dropped my references to:
--the collective bargaining that was part of the initial 1973 compromise/"solution"
--"Major Moves" as an example of the governor's ability and willingness to go outside the status quo (an important consideration here!).

The editing was thorough-- what you would expect (or at least hope for) from such a high quality publication. Part of the issue was writing a local piece for a national audience-- a somewhat challenging task. Edits (and editorial questions) ranged from the minor (is Indy an abbreviation for Indianapolis or a different city) to making sure that enough context was included so readers could understand what I was trying to communicate.

It was awesome to get something published in the WSJ. Maybe, some other time as well...