Two community collections

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

The editors of a community recipe booklet began by rewriting every contribution in the same formal style. Personal introductions disappeared, familiar expressions were replaced, and each cook seemed to address the reader in an identical voice. When the editors read the complete proof, the booklet felt orderly but no longer conveyed who had contributed each dish.

They restored the cooks’ introductions and kept distinctive phrases where their meaning remained clear. Ingredients and stages still followed a consistent order so that readers could use the recipes easily. Where a family expression might be unfamiliar, the editors added a brief explanation rather than removing it. Contributors were also asked to approve any personal memories printed beside their recipes.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

A community radio series invited local craftspeople to describe their work. For the first recordings, the producer wrote every opening statement and asked each guest to read it. Although the episodes followed the planned structure, listening to them together made the speakers sound almost interchangeable.

The producer invited later guests to introduce themselves in their own words while keeping the same time limit and sequence of questions for every episode. A short comment from the presenter clarified specialist expressions without replacing the guest’s wording. Before an episode was released, each speaker confirmed which personal details could remain. The series kept a recognisable format, but the people taking part no longer sounded as if they had been given one shared script.

What similarities are there between the editorial decisions described in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.