Continuing the thoughts on editing begun in Bad Editing:
Granted that bad or little editing may help a magazine or newspaper sell copies, I think, to get all moralistic, that the editor who doesn’t edit closely and force the writer to write better has failed at his craft. “My craft is creating a publication that attracts readers and makes money” is not a defense.
The editor who doesn’t do what he can to make the writing better fails the people who agree with the writer by not giving them the quality of argument they need, and he fails those who don’t by not presenting them with arguments they have to engage rather than blowing off. He’s called to help writers say something that is not only more accessible but more truthful than they could have said on their own.
Many writers will resist this kind of editing, and understandably enough. They thought well of the article they’d sent you, expecting you to refine the writing here and there, and find you either suggesting substantial revisions to the writing or asking them to clarify, change, remove, add, nuance, or rethink ideas they’d thought finished and definitive, or both. It can be a shock.
When the editor points out what he thinks needs to be done, the good writer will force himself to think through his writing or his ideas more deeply, assuming that even if the editor is wrong, readers like the editor may have the same questions and reactions. He may well push back, which the good editor will expect, but he will push back only after carefully considering the editor’s suggestions.