by Vaani Sai
September’s program welcomed David Silverberg (journalist, editor, writing coach, and published poet) sharing his insights on what writers look for in their relationship with publishing editors. Here, Vaani Sai recaps the session where David discussed power dynamics, editorial expectations, communication processes, deadline flexibility, the scourge of “being ghosted,” and what encourages writers to work with editors again.
A great story can be weakened long before readers see it – not by a lack of talent, but by a strained, vague, or transactional relationship between the person writing it and the person editing it.
The writer-editor relationship is often treated as a routine hand-off: A draft goes in, edits come back, and the piece gets published. But this relationship is the foundation beneath the finished work and the reader’s experience. When it works well, both people make each other better.
Here are useful, and occasionally counterintuitive, principles for building that kind of partnership.
1. Publishing a first draft untouched is not a compliment
Editors may assume that publishing a writer’s copy with little or no feedback communicates trust. Sometimes it does. More often, especially early in a relationship, it can feel like abandonment.
A writer who receives no notes may reasonably conclude that the editor was too busy to engage with the work, not that the draft was flawless. Writers want to know what landed, what missed, and how they can improve.
There are exceptions. A fast-moving news cycle may demand minimal intervention, and an experienced contributor may reliably deliver near-final copy. But as a rule, the untouched first draft is a “faux win-lose-lose”: The editor saves time, while the writer loses a learning opportunity, and readers receive a less polished article.
2. Respect is the real power structure
Editors have institutional authority: They assign work, shape the final piece, decide whether it runs, and often influence payment and future opportunities. But authority alone does not make an editorial relationship effective.
The productive model is mutual respect. Writers need editors to be competent, transparent, and clear about expectations. Editors need writers to respect deadlines, absorb feedback, and not make the editor repeat the same guidance assignment after assignment.
Respect also means remembering what editing should not be. The aim is not to dismantle a writer’s voice or prove editorial superiority. It is to improve the copy while preserving the writer’s strengths, insights, and ownership.
The first interaction matters disproportionately. A thoughtful, professional opening establishes the tone for everything that follows. A dismissive one can make a writer defensive before the real work ever begins.
3. Specific feedback is kinder than “nice” feedback
Vague notes often sound polite but create more work and anxiety. “Make this stronger,” “tighten it up,” or “this needs more energy” may be technically true, yet they leave the writer guessing about what needs to change.
Specificity is one of the clearest forms of respect an editor can offer. If a lead lacks urgency, say why. If a paragraph wanders, identify where. If a source needs context, explain what readers must understand.
Clear comments are especially important with newer contributors or writers who work only occasionally with a publication. They may not yet understand the publication’s voice, audience, technical vocabulary, preferred structure, or editorial standards. What seems obvious inside a newsroom may be invisible to a freelance writer outside it. The goal is to give enough direction that they can revise confidently and learn from the process.
4. Correct the pattern, not just the sentence
A particularly valuable editor does more than repair the problems in one assignment. They notice recurring patterns and name them.
Perhaps a writer repeatedly relies on long, winding sentences. Maybe every introduction takes too long to arrive at the point. Maybe the writer uses the same transition words, relies too heavily on jargon, or does not clearly establish the stakes for readers.
This is more demanding than line editing, but it has a much larger payoff. A writer who understands their habitual weakness can address it in future drafts, the editor has fewer recurring corrections to make, and the publication receives stronger work more consistently.
5. Harsh feedback may be memorable – but it isn’t useful
Directness is efficient, but there is a difference between candour and contempt.
Feedback delivered with impatience, frustration, or disdain can damage a working relationship quickly. The writer may not return at all, even if the editor’s underlying point was valid.
That does not mean editors should dilute necessary criticism. Nodding to number three, honest feedback is essential, but criticism should be expressed in a way to give the writer a way forward. If a writer knows their anecdotal opening worked, their reporting was thorough, or their conclusion was sharp, they can carry those strengths into future assignments.
6. Creative experimentation is a sign that trust is working
Once a writer and editor have established a reliable relationship, the work should not become mechanically predictable. It should become more adventurous.
A writer may want to try humour, a more narrative structure, an unexpected point of view, or a richer anecdotal opening.
Experimentation does not mean ignoring editorial standards. It means allowing writers to test forms and tools within a shared understanding of the audience and mission. The writer is no longer simply trying not to make mistakes; they are invited to contribute ideas. That sense of trust energizes people, and energized writers often produce more original work.
7. “I’ll get back to you soon” is not a deadline
Writers organize their lives around assignments. Vague editorial timelines create avoidable chaos. If you’re an editor who expects a second draft by a particular date, say so. If the editorial review will take a week, state that. If publication has been delayed, communicate it as early as possible.
A writer cannot plan around “soon,” “next week,” or “when I get a chance.” Specific dates are better for everyone because they turn assumptions into shared expectations.
8. Ghosting is a professional failure – on both sides
Ghosting can happen at every stage: after a pitch, following a first draft, during onboarding, when tax forms are needed, or after an invoice is submitted. It is one of the fastest ways to undermine trust.
Writers should not be left wondering whether their work was received, whether an assignment was cancelled, or whether they will be paid. Even if an editor is not personally responsible for contracts or finance, they should help ensure the writer is connected to the correct person rather than ignored.
Editors also deserve communication from writers. If a writer cannot meet a deadline, they should say so early. If they disappear after accepting an assignment, an editor is right to address it.
The standard should be simple: No one should have to chase basic information that the other party has.
9. Flexibility matters most around money and timing – not quality
A writer may welcome flexibility when a deadline shifts because an interview source becomes unavailable or reporting grows more complex. They may also need flexibility in negotiating a fair rate. But flexibility should not become an excuse to lower editorial standards.
Be flexible about the conditions that allow good work to happen, while remaining rigorous about the work itself.
Pay is a primary example. Many writers hesitate to negotiate because they fear appearing difficult, greedy, or easily replaceable. Yet the economic reality is stark: Rates around one dollar per word have remained stagnant for decades, despite inflation and rising costs.
Editors should also recognize unpaid tasks hidden inside an assignment. Finding, requesting, organizing, and securing permission for photos from interview subjects takes time. Fair compensation is not only a financial issue; it shapes whether talented writers can stay in the profession.
10. The best editors help writers build careers beyond one story
A strong editor helps develop a professional ecosystem rather than just commissioning content.
One small but meaningful gesture is providing writers with PDFs or article sheets for their portfolios, especially when an article sits behind a paywall. Those clips help writers pitch future assignments and demonstrate their work to other editors.
Another generous practice is referring strong writers to peers. In an industry shaped by AI tools, publication closures, and an increasingly crowded freelance market, a lead or introduction can be invaluable, and this generosity is not purely altruistic. Editors who treat writers well become the people writers want to work with again. They gain access to better pitches, more committed contributors, and a reputation that travels through professional networks.
11. The real job is to make each other better
The writer-editor relationship cannot be reduced to tracked changes and deadline reminders.
Good editors help writers become stronger over time, rather than simply improving a draft. Good writers do not simply submit copy; they communicate, revise seriously, and respect the editorial process.
The most enduring question is whether the relationship made the next piece, and the people creating it, better, rather than whether a piece was published at all.
David Silverberg is a journalist, editor, writing coach, published poet, and solo theatre artist. His bylines have appeared in BBC News, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The Washington Post, Canadian Business, Princeton Alumni Weekly, VICE.com, The Grammys.com, Serviette, and Rue Morgue. A graduate of Toronto Metropolitan University’s journalism school, David was the editor of tech news network DigitalJournal.com. He was also the founding editor of B2B News Network. In spring 2026, he was the Writer in Residence at the Toronto Public Library, with a focus on journalism. Find out more at DavidSilverberg.ca or on LinkedIn.
Vaani Sai is a creative communications professional with experience in digital and print publishing. She is the founder of dosas and diamonds, a content writing, editing, and proofreading studio serving clients across healthcare, education, and lifestyle, as well as neurowrite, where she educates and coaches writers through creative resistance. She has been a volunteer copy editor for BoldFace since 2022.
This article was copy edited by Katherine Morton (MBA, BA), a certified copy editor with global clients.
