《喀什日报》1985年7月23日头版《喀什之窗》专栏刊载杨爱君献血救产妇的新闻。报纸发行后,伽师县城一片哗然。已死去两月之久的产妇,报上居然说她“得救”了,产妇的亲属见报后,复又悲痛欲绝。当地读者立即来信提出批评。那么,产妇是怎样死而“复生”的呢?原来原稿中作者并没有交代清楚产妇是否得救,编辑想当然加上“产妇得救了”五字,造成了影响很坏的事实错误。这是一起深刻的教训!我们认为编者、作者都应从中吸取教训。错误的产生,编辑负有直接责任。编辑错就错在信笔加上“产妇得救了”五个字。尊重原稿是编辑工作的一项原则。原稿上没有的事实,编者不能搞逻辑推理,凭想当然往上添加。遇到原稿事实不清楚时,应当打电话或写信去问一下,不弄清楚就不能刊用。这是编辑工作方面的教训。作者有没有责任呢?我们认为作者也有责任。作者的责任在于没有把产妇是否得救写清楚。首先,在约三百字的原稿里,作者共用了三个“救” Kashgar News The front page of Kashgar’s window on July 23, 1985 contains news about Yang Aijun’s blood donation and maternity. After the newspaper was issued, an uproar in Jiashi County. The maternal woman who has died two months ago reported that she was “saved” and the relatives of the maternal mother were reported sadly and sadly. The local reader immediately wrote a letter criticizing. So how did the mother “die again”? In the original manuscript, the author did not explain clearly whether the mother was saved, and the editor of course took the words “The mother was saved”, resulting in a very wrong factual error. This is a profound lesson! We think editors and authors should learn from it. The error occurred, the editor has a direct responsibility. The editor wrong is wrong letter plus pen “maternal save” five words. Respecting the manuscript is a principle of editing. There are no facts on the manuscript, the editor can not engage in logical reasoning, of course, add up. Met manuscript fact is not clear, you should call or write a letter to ask, do not make it clear. This is a lesson in editing. Is the author responsible? We think the authors also have a responsibility. The author’s responsibility is not clearly stated whether the maternal salvation. First of all, in about three hundred words of original, the author shared three “save”