What Would You Say The Tone Of This Editorial Is

How do you get a satirical tone in writing?

Satire has to be played straight.  You have to be unsure at times if the speaker is serious about what they are saying.  For example, Robert Duvall's "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" speech in Apocalypse Now takes us into his world and we almost think he is a sensual person we need to take seriously.  Then he describes an incident involving a lot of killing and says, "It smells like... victory."  The leap between reasonable and outrageous can be breathtaking in satire.And the first third of Jonathan Swift's essay, "A Modest Proposal" is not full of sparkling wit, but sounds more like a humble bureaucrat trying to solve the administrative problem of starving Irish nationals.  Then he lays it all out by suggesting that the overpopulation problem could be solved by having the Irish eat their own babies.  My favorite satirical moments are like this.  They are written as if spoken by someone who is totally reasonable but lacks all empathy.  In short, most satirical personas have a little bit of psychopath in them.

The New York Times editorial "I am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" was written anonymously. Does the use of the word "lodestar" point to Mike Pence as the leaker?

I’ve thought about this too! I think the person who wrote the letter used the word “lodestar” to throw us off and make us suspect that the letter writer is Pence. As much as it is hard to believe, there are some smart people in the White House! And you don’t even need to be that smart. Even a kid in high school is smart enough to figure out how to throw others off their scent. I believe John McCain also used the word and there was a bit of talk about him being the writer of the letter.Lodestar is a good term to use as it points to more than one potential writer making things all the more confusing. (I had to look the word up when I first read it because I had never heard it.) Since it means using a star to navigate a ship, it leads us to believe the writer could have served in the Navy. However, that might be another mechanism to throw us off. Pence was in the Navy, a branch of the service most likely to use lodestar. John McCain was in the Navy. But think about it. If you were writing a letter anonymously would you use a technical term so specific that it could easily be pinned on you? I think Pence wants to be the next president so badly that if he penned the letter, he would have gone out of his way not to use the term. On the other hand, if McCain wrote it, he would perhaps go out of his way to use the term as he was so bold. I don’t think McCain was the writer because he was dying. The letter is very well written so it’s clear the writer took their time on it. It’s hard to imagine they would be so mindless as to choosing a technical, career-specific term.Maybe the writer is someone who has never previously used the term lodestar and has never served in the military. I feel like a better avenue to figuring out who wrote the letter would be analyzing writing style. Writing style is hard to fake. But then again, maybe more than one person wrote the letter.I think we should be looking for someone who did not serve in the military. That applies to most in the current White House. I hope we do one day find out who wrote the letter. Any guesses?

What do editors usually know about publishing that writers do not know?

Fundamentally this question seems to be about the creative, iterative, collaborative process involving both editors and writers that results in a marketable publication.I like Gideon Rose's answer, but would be a stronger editor's advocate and add that publishing happens at a number of different tiers now. The editors and the rest of an editorial team (including illustrators, layout designers, etc.) are more involved when it comes to more refined, distilled content at the top tiers. Quora, for example, has a ranking algorithm and a QA and curation function of sorts, but no means of directly augmenting or distilling good content to maximize its impact. Good editors know how to find and hire good writers. Finding good writers is a trial-and-error process requiring a reliable discovery process, knowledge of the topic at hand and continual networking. Good writers may only know about the niche they've been operating in. A good editor has broad knowledge that goes with the territory and the role.Good editors know the publication, its target audience and its ideal tone and style intimately. These editors can brief writers on requirements. Often writers must do several drafts to be able to deliver useful content. Sometimes writers don't deliver and editors have to do complete rewrites. Good editors are also good writers.Good writers may not be good researchers or subject matter experts. Editors often help by filling in the gaps. Sometimes editors have to make a choice between a good writer and a good researcher or subject matter expert. If I have to make a choice, I choose someone who knows the topic cold over someone whose prose I don't have to line edit, but whose knowledge of the topic is shallow.Good writers sometimes don't know when to stop, what to cut out or what to lead with. As a researcher and writer who also edits, I appreciate the abilities of a talented guide and surgeon.  Good surgeons are scarce.Good writers and editors need each other and the rest of the editorial team. All good teams understand the value of the collaborative process.

Will the new pro-remain Daily Mail editor change anything about Brexit?

This is a good question. I personally read the Telegraph, it’s content generally is to my personal bias and viewpoint. I also read the Guardian (Basically a left leaning Liberal, pretentious Daily Mail equivalent, it’s core readers share striking similarities to Daily Mail readers in my opinion. The Guardian is certainly better referenced but it’s biases leave out much of the story in the same way as the Daily Mail) for political perspective. Away from politics I find the Entertainment and other news informative and some of the stories entertaining.I “used” to buy the Mail on Sunday and was quite surprised by the pro EU rhetoric within the paper over the last few years. Note that I “used” to buy the paper, this is an important point. Reinforcement of your views always reinforces your sense of being correct. Whether you are right or wrong is not the point.If the new editor changes the rhetoric it will not change the view of most Daily Mail readers. They may continue to read out of habit or they may pick up a copy of the Daily Express, and buy that in the future. The choice of the editor and owner to change the audience is of course their choice and should be encouraged as it demonstrates free speech. Whether this is a sensible move financially is another question, in an era where the printed press is competing against digital media in a hypernormalised world. A successful model as the Daily Mail currently is would be their loss.Ask yourself this……. If you are a core Gaurdian, Independent, Observer reader….. Would you continue buying the paper if it for instance became Pro-Brexit…..