As someone who edited a magazine for four years, allow me to digress with a brief rant about language. I have two pet peeves.
First, “digital” is an adjective. As in “digital video” or “digital audio” or “digital acquisition” or even “digital divide.” It is not a noun — it modifies a noun. So, for example, it would be incorrect to say something like, “we’re going to shoot it on digital,” (how many times have you heard that?) or, “that was before I started editing on digital.” On digital WHAT? There’s a word missing — the noun.
Second, and more important for us, “editor” is a human being, not a machine. I am getting very tired of the recent trend of calling an editing system, a piece of software, an editor. We don’t call Microsoft Word a “writer,” even though it would be quicker and easier to use that word, and we don’t call Quark Xpress a “desktop publisher.” We never called our Moviolas and KEMS editors, either.
There is simply no logic for this usage — no good reason to confuse two totally different things by giving them the same name. It’s totally disrespectful and frankly, it’s just plain wrong. The machine does not edit — it allows a human being to edit. The hammer doesn’t build the house — and we don’t call it a carpenter, either.
We need to find another word for the device that allows people to edit. And for want of something better, maybe we should stick with the term that worked just fine for the first decade and a half of the digital revolution — “editing application.”
Splice Now 
Recent Comments