As an editor, I find it of considerable interest to compare versions of the same article from several sources. A close examination shows the deliberate choices the editor made to include or embellish factual details (as known at the time), to ignore or minimize other details, and to rephrase or paraphrase the main ideas for the benefit of the intended audience.
Sometimes a scientific discovery, for example, as described by the laboratory that originally performed the research, can be so rigorous as to be incomprehensible to a general audience.
Without an editor skilled in explaining the science in laypersons terms, the profound implications of a discovery or scientific advance may be completely overlooked and disregarded.
Then too, I dont necessarily appreciate being told, even in good faith, which version is the best in someones or some groups opinion and limit myself to being exposed to just that one version of the report. I much prefer to make up my own mind, even if it means I scan several articles which are very similar.
In selecting the articles which I highlight for the day, I am expressing my personal opinion about which ones most interested me but that doesnt necessarily mean that I intend that you should limit yourself to those few highlighted articles.
See if you dont become a more interested and critical readerand derive more pleasureby comparing several versions covering basically the same information. |