So after my stint as editor for a day (or more like twenty minutes), I kind of thought I sounded a lot more knowledgable about writing a good story than I probably actually am. The words coming out of my mouth sounded like myself - that is, voice wise - but my ears heard the likes of my past teacher-editors: Jeff Unger, Mike Howie, Walt Harrington. I, as they did, questioned the focus, suggested a tighter, livelier lead, and a stronger ending. I asked about the relevance of certain quotes and wanted more information from better reporting. It is interesting that I found so many things that I thought could be changed in such few written words. Or perhaps I really helped very little (hopefully that isn't the case). But my point is: if I had written the story, I am near positive that I could have had a better focus, more relevant and colorful sources, and a better resolution or conclusion. And I would only realize this after talking to my editor.

I am the first to say that I am not a person that takes criticism the best. I am not the person who backs down from an argument. And I am not the person to readily admit I am wrong. But as I have heard many a classmate talk about their problems with editors and taking their criticisms, I must say that I look forward to my story being edited. Anything to make me a better writer and better reporter I will take with open arms. I suppose that is until I have an editor that I truly abhor. Let's just say as of now, I am lucky to have only respect and thanks for those I have worked with.