The other kind of editor, much more common, makes changes for the same reason a dog lifts his leg on a bush or a fire hydrant: to make his mark. This kind of editor is prone to adding words to "clarify" things, making the piece more ponderous and confusing. This kind of editor typically mistakes typos for grammatical ignorance on the part of the writer. This type of editor is prone to subjective changes of words -- changing "myraid colors," for example, to "myriad of colors." Both are correct; one is more elegant.
Sarah's piece was succinct and successful in communicating the message. Any editing it "needs" is less for Palin or her readers, and more for the presuming editor's vanity.
“Spelling is the least important part of writing” -—
Self serving but true.
I suck at spelling!
Sarah did well, but I do notice style.
Message is most important, but message is not a bunch of facts, a good message is one that compels us to do something, or think a certain way, based on relevant facts.
Style is next. Does anyone want to READ your message? Is it boring? Is it pedantic? Is it haughty? Is it sophomoric? -— Does it challenge us to remember that which we already should know? Does it bring out emotions and feelings and speak the words that we already believe, but had not crafted yet, in our own minds?
Does it have cadence, rhythm, is it fun, does it compel us to read every word, to the very end? Does it feel like poetry, even though the words do not rhyme and the sentences are different lengths? Palin did just fine.
I can find a mistake on any page of any newspaper, any day of the week.