Editing is now the easiest thing on earth to do, and all the things that evolved out of word processing - 'Oh, let's put that sentence there, let's get rid of this' - have become commonplace in films and music too.
One of the annoyances of working for The Guardian is that, obsessed as the organisation is with its digital and social media presence and its own sense of singular importance, editors would militantly try to edit your tweets.
I treat recorded tapes the way a film director treats his rushes.
While there are certainly food-focused content out there on the Web and on TV, most of this content need to weave through many layers of editing before it reaches the viewer.
I wouldn’t mind having the proceedings of the court sent out on television covering it gavel to gavel. But by the time most of the media do their editing and broadcasting, I’m afraid that the public will see an atypical sampling of the court. It will misinform the public rather than inform.
What helps change bad writing into mediocre writing is editing. Editing is in bad shape in print journalism, and is in virtually nonexistent shape in online journalism.
Writing is a recording that you can cut up and reassemble. Sound is something you can cut up and reassemble. Film, video - you know, the main tools of culture - can all be cut up and reassembled.
As soon as digital editing came about, I immediately made the switch to digital.
Here's what I'm wondering: if, digitally, you can remove red-eye, smooth over wrinkles, make people look thinner, then why don't we have the technology to make me sing better?
Often real life is boring and problematic. I love the edited version of it.
