The Darkness Before Dawn

The anonymous source doth protest too much, methinks.

An avid reader of many weblogs, including Dawn Eden's Dawn Patrol, I was sorry read today's latest entry. I thought at one time it would be fun to visit Dawn at the mighty New York Post and maybe have a quick tour. Now I'm afraid there are too many dank sub-basements full of Christian bones in that place.

Why should I know any of this? I read Dawn's weblog, with which I don't always agree but which I always respect. What gossip writers call "rabid" others might call conviction, and it's always on display. I'd read the Post online now and then, if only for the celebrity dirt. But now Dawn's part of the celebrity dirt, and the reasons why are just ugly.

Have you heard the argument? Is there no offence in ’t?

If you don't know anything about Dawngate, you should click over to Dawn's site and begin there. If you are familiar with Dawngate, perhaps you could answer a question or two.

First, here's my take. Dawn, as copy editor, screwed up by "embellishing" a story, even if "embellishing" here means "clarified by adding facts." I used to write for a paper, and nothing goes straight to the reptilian survival instinct like seeing something in print that wasn't on your computer screen (or TeleVideo terminal in my case). It's an issue of hierarchy here: publisher, editor, writer, God, advertisers, garden slugs, subscribers, amoeba, single-issue buyers, copy editors. The copy editor shall make so attempt to emulate a writer, nor shall she look directly at a writer.

Second, from what I've heard, Dawn apologized, and that should have been the end of it. I'm sorry, I won't do it again, where's tomorrow's copy? Today's Post is tomorrow's fish wrap. But in this case, someone dug the paper out of the trash and insists on waving it around, fish gut stains and all. How is it that a former copy editor makes it onto Page Six, home of truly important people like Paris Hilton?

Here's my single-shooter theory. The Post doesn't need the publicity. I have to believe it's very, very important for the writer of the "embellished" piece, Susan Edelman, to make it clear to, well, somebody, that no embryos were harmed in the making of her article. Nothing died. IVF is beautiful and natural and everyone goes home happy.

Again, the original issue is landfill. Read (partially, at least) and forgotten by the Post-reading public. The copy editor's history. But she's not. Someone leaks some bogus information to Women's Wear Daily, of all places, which apparently is your source for retail fashion news and career updates about copy editors (who, remember, rank below the amoeba). Then the same "rabid" copy editor makes Page Six, as the paper turns the spotlight a writer who said nice things about Dawn and, to paraphrase Pulp Fiction, gets all middle school on his ass. George and Dawn, sitting in a tree...

Look, I'm nobody. I've never met Dawn. I don't even claim to be a Christian. But c'mon. It's pretty obvious that Susan Edelman and crew (1) feel that Dawn, already fired, needs to be punished in public for her transgression, probably to punctuate point (2), which is that Ms. Edelman and crew can't afford, for whatever reason, to have the words "embryos" and "died" within 1,000 miles of her byline. "It wasn't me! It was Dawn! She's crazy! Look at her blog! There's a cross on it, for Christ's sake!"

Still no public comment from Edelman, only slights via surrogates like WWD and Page Six. Meanwhile, The Dawn Patrol is going stong, thanks to its rabid fanbase, you could say.

UPDATE: I just found Karol's very wise take on the situation here. I don't read the Post either, but if anything incorrect was added, print a correction. If it was correct but left out on purpose, well, here we are.

UPDATE 2: In searching the Internet for the original article that caused all the ruckus, I came across this fossil, in which a writer named Susan Edelman takes mean old George H.W. Bush to task over stem cells: "A potential cure for Parkinson's disease could be imminent if the federal government lifted its ban on fetal-tissue research, a leading expert on the disease said Saturday in Tenafly."