What is confusing, though, is that the Guardian cites what purport to be direct quotes from Ogilvie that strongly suggest, if not expressly state, that Burchfield misrepresented his work as an editor to take credit for something that he didn’t really deserve. And even if you assume that those statements were taken out of context, I can’t imagine a context that they could be put in that would make them accurate (unless, Wayne’s World style, she said “NOT” after making them). The direct quotes don’t make any reference to “covert” deletions of words, but the assertions about Burchfield seem to be rather troubling in and of themselves. And she does use “shocking” in direct quotes and seems to be discussing deletions (the exact word used is “leaves”, and it seems to mean “is deleted” in context) though I suppose it’s conceivable that she wasn’t actually saying Burchfield deleted words in a shocking way, and was referring to deletions as a hypothetical possibility that would be shocking if it occurred, but that seems like a stretch.
So even if her book was perfectly scholarly and reasoned, and she only made outrageous claims in an interview about the book, it still looks like she can properly be taken to task for her comments. Or am I missing something?