Palin Speech

In this post, I'll attempt to answer the following questions in response to Vanity Fair's editing of Sarah Palin's resignation speech:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907

1. What are the problematics of speeches vis-a-vis the reporter and the editor?
2. What does this say about the role/importance of editors/editing in general?
3. What things (plural) have the editor done with this speech.
4. Has the editor made it better. If so, how? If not, why not?

The speech is absolutely terrible, and the amount of editing coloring the pages is a reflection of that. While the editor's red marks make the speech so much better by eliminating awkward wording and bad grammar, I think the green marks by the research editor were more important. Palin had several fact errors, exaggerations and misleading statements that reduce her speech to uneducated rambling. Her confusion of Andrew Johnson with Abraham Lincoln reveals her lack of knowledge of Alaska's history, which she attempted to use to connect with her constituents. Her claims that ethics inquiries wasted Americans' tax dollars were misleading because all the inquiries were made by Alaskan residents and agencies, and the state shelled out $200,000 to investigate, not $2 million. She does not explain how this money was taken away from education and police/highway funds either.
She says that she knows people are going to question her timing of her resignation, but then does not elaborate on how she has made the right decision by resigning now.

The role and importance of editing can be seen throughout this examples. The media play a huge role in keeping an eye on politicians' claims and lets the public know when they are skewing the truth. Simple editing can make the message that much clearer and more concise, which in turn reaches the reader better. Without editing, Palin seems like a complete idiot. After editing, she seems like she actually had some reason why she was elected governor.