Quick post. The New York Observer profile of one Dawn Eden graced the front page of that publication today. (I've only seen the online version, which is rather devoid of photos, but if anyone cares to send me the shots used in the print version I'd be interested in seeing them!) From my limited experience with Dawn, it's a really good portrait of her, though perhaps a little too fawning for my taste in these kinds of things -- but then, I tend to prefer a more balanced commentary, even if in the end one's assessment leans more to one direction than the other. So here's my take on her sitch -- while I can certainly understand why Dawn and her friends would be upset about her being fired, and while I wish Dawn luck in finding a new job post-haste (which I don't imagine will be difficult, now that she's a star and all), I'm not at all surprised that the New York Post terminated her as a result of her actions. In fact, in Allan's position, I might have done the same thing. I'm sure this feeling is even more pronounced in professional journalism, but before I became a section editor at my high school newspaper and was "just" a staff writer, I was intensely afraid that in the post-production process my articles would be edited to leave out something that was integral to the point that I was trying to make -- or, worse, that something added "for explanatory or clarificatory purposes" would somehow alter or obscure the thrust of my piece by implying something that I didn't intend to write. (It was for this reason that I hung around after-hours during Hell Week in order to aways be on hand when my articles were being edited, and that was probably one of the reasons I was made a section editor. I mean, I was going to be around anyway...!) And admittedly, things like that will inevitably happen in journalism, but usually they won't be serious enough to significantly anger the writer of the piece or to warrant any disciplinary action on the part of the editor.

In Dawn's case, however, Edelman was furious. That alone is reason enough to consider some kind of disciplinary action -- after all, you can't run a paper without writers, and something needs to be done about a copyeditor who's pissing off the writers. Moreover, we know that Dawn's anti-abortion -- fiercely so, in fact -- so there's reason to assume that her motive in making her corrections extended beyond pure clarificatory intent -- so of course her actions come across as a definite journalistic no-no. Now, I'm not sure I would have fired her at this point, but then it also sounds like Dawn had enemies at this paper -- or at least people who wouldn't mind seeing her gone. (Which strikes me as kinda hard to believe, having met her in person, but then in many instances she comes across as wildly different in print -- such that I find Gurley's profile to be lacking in that he didn't address the inconsistency.) In light of this most recent offense, firing Dawn may have been the best way to "keep the peace" at the office and to set an example -- to plainly state that those who allow their personal views to affect their work will be terminated. And so forth.

Still, best of luck, Dawn! Maybe you could get a job modeling. 😉

Closing on a slightly related note, Julia Donaldson is gorgeous. Love the hair, doll. 😉