E.B. White and others have suggested that specifics — facts — good information — are the keys to good writing.

But that was pre-Internet, when good information was difficult to find.

The writer’s job would be to ferret out information the reader didn’t have access to — and then organize and present it in a clear and entertaining fashion.

But today, thanks to the Internet, everyone theoretically has instant access to the same set of facts and information — and the supply is massive.

More and more authors today are writing thinner books, and huge reference books are a vanishing breed.

In their place, are short, quick-reading books focusing and explaining a single important idea.

So, is the hallmark of good writing good ideas … good information … or both?

If both, which one is more important — the factual content or the exploration of a new idea?

The other day I heard a radio commercial that began: “If you have a car you no longer need or have little use for….”

Would you, like me, delete the phrase “or have little use for” as being unnecessary and redundant?

Along the same lines, grammarians point out that the popular copywriting phrase “free gift” is redundant, because all gifts are by definition free … and these grammarians urge copywriters to just write “gift.”

Do you agree with them? Or will you stick with “free gift” in your promotions? Why? (I’d ask “Or why not?” but grammarians insist that the “why not” option is implied when you ask “why.”)

According to an article published by the Illinois Information Technology Association (IITA), 550 million Internet searches are done daily worldwide ? and only 23% of adults under 30 today read newspapers regularly.

Do you read newspapers? Why or why not?

Will newspapers close their doors within one generation? Or will the Sunday morning ritual of reading the New York Times be around forever?

RH, who has edited a number of my books, recently noted in an e-mail to me, ?Everybody needs an editor!?

Copywriters, magazine writers, newspaper reporters, and book authors published by traditional publishing houses all have editors.

But self-published book authors, e-book authors, e-zine writers, and bloggers usually don?t: what they write goes straight from their PC to the reader, without being vetted by a third party.

I?ve often heard blogging enthusiasts derisively refer to ?edited content? when speaking of traditional publishing.

But is editing bad? I?ve always thought of editing as ?quality control? for the written word. And as a rule, give me good writing over bad any day.

What do you think? Do you prefer having your writing edited? Or left alone?

Would you rather read blogs and other ?unedited? writings? Or magazines and other formats where the text you are reading has passed through an editor?s ?quality inspection??