Posts
I wonder if Roy Greenslade honestly still believes that newspapers and magazines don't need subeditors?
Judging by the high level of commentary circulating on the internet, he seems to be in a class of one.
Last week, Tim Luckhurst, a professor of journalism, made a cogent case for teaching subbing skills to every single student hack, as it would equip them with skills for life. I couldn't agree more. Practically every journo I know cheerfully admits that they'd hate to sub their own work, even when they feel they have the skills to sub others'.
The Press Gazette has been hot on Luckhurst's heels today. First it published the subs' howlers hit list, which tickled my funny bone. Every publication I've ever worked on kept one of these and, like the one mentioned in PG, it was usually very lengthy. Then PG printed another leaked rant by Simon Heffer, the Telegraph's "style guru" about the appalling number of errors appearing in copy (clearly, the Daily Dreadnought's subs' desk could do with some intensive training by Prof. Luckhurst!). I feel cheered that people care enough still to keep flagging up why publications cannot afford to ditch their subeditors.
Journalism.co.uk published a link to the copy editor's lament (courtesy of Common Sense Journalism). The song is a hoot and the lyrics are conveniently provided.
It's not just the press that needs skilled copy-editors. Many of my own clients are commercial organisations. Only today, I saved one from the potentially huge embarrassment of putting out a document that stated somewhere in the copy a reference to an "£18 billion pubic service programme".
Quite.
Somehow, I think Greenslade is losing the fight here. Time to throw the towel in, Roy. You're never going to win this particular argument, expecially when your own blog is full of howlers.
Showing posts with label sub-editing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sub-editing. Show all posts
09 March 2009
30 November 2008
This ain't the Tansa for subbing
A colleague drew my attention to Tansa the other day. It's basically a software program that will sub text. The Economist and Telegraph are, apparently, already using it.
One freelance colleague half-jokingly said it would make all sub-editors redundant by Christmas. A frightening thought, given the massively high levels of redundancy in the industry at present.
Even more sobering is the scenario another colleague envisioned - the temptation when under pressure for the sub operating the software to let a piece of copy go through entirely unread by anyone except the original writer. Cue potential for libel. Or decency issues.
It may have been invented as a tool to ease the pressure on the subs' desk so they can get on with reading through for sense, defamation problems and so on, but no doubt the bosses will see it as an opportunity to slash staff and save money.
Software will never replace the human touch, but I believe it will lead to more personnel losses and falling standards if proprietors think it's a way to save money.
One freelance colleague half-jokingly said it would make all sub-editors redundant by Christmas. A frightening thought, given the massively high levels of redundancy in the industry at present.
Even more sobering is the scenario another colleague envisioned - the temptation when under pressure for the sub operating the software to let a piece of copy go through entirely unread by anyone except the original writer. Cue potential for libel. Or decency issues.
It may have been invented as a tool to ease the pressure on the subs' desk so they can get on with reading through for sense, defamation problems and so on, but no doubt the bosses will see it as an opportunity to slash staff and save money.
Software will never replace the human touch, but I believe it will lead to more personnel losses and falling standards if proprietors think it's a way to save money.
24 August 2008
Media Diet Week 34
Press: not much to comment on this week. The postie delivered my mail on Thursday and the "flumph" as it landed on the mat was eerily quieter than previously. Probably because I've cancelled my subscription to Press Gazette. I'm still in two minds about having taken that drastic step as I miss it. However, the revamp of PG's website is looking promising, although it's disappointing to see the loss of the Knowledge section. I picked up a copy of Women's Fitness to read on the train the other day, drawn by the coverlines. Inside, though, it had no distinguishing features from any other fitness mags aimed at women. Just the same old, same old serving of diet, exercise and beauty. Even the exercise pages were woefully thin at just a page or two with not enough detail - the "drop a stone in 4 weeks" feature listed lots of exercises but no information on how to do them. Very helpful. And an article on swapping jogging for fell-walking will be useless for most readers, who probably don't live within an hour's drive of their nearest hills...
Blogs: well, the blog du jour of the past week was apparently this one, after my post on sub-editors. First, Greenslade picked it up, then it attracted attention here, here, here, here and here. Not to mention the comments on my original post by Jeff Jarvis, among others. Looks like I touched a nerve, then... I'm pleased - this is an important debate to have. I can see the validity of the argument that news blogging is about the here and now, the immediacy of getting the news out there, rather than worrying about the typos. But there's a deeper argument to consider, about the need to maintain literacy standards across the board, not for journalists so much as readers. Somehow, I don't think this topic is going to go away. On a different note, I'm really enjoying the emergence of the new TNTJ blog ring run by young journalists who are blogging on the future of journalism. It's got off to a great start and I'm looking forward to following these young hacks.
TV/radio: quite apart from the saturation coverage of a certain sporting event, the TV schedules have been really dull this week. Must be late summer, that limbo between some series ending and the start of the autumn season proper. I watched Boris Johnson discover his roots on Who Do You Think You Are? despite not being a Boris fan. It was unexpectedly interesting, despite Johnson's regular yelps of "Cripes!" and "Wowee!" I suspect the next episode, with Jerry Springer, will be a lot better, though, not least because Johnson has little charisma on camera.
Books: it's been a busy week, with little time for bedtime reading. I have managed to start Alistair's Campbell's The Blair Years, however, although I've only read the foreword to the paperback edition and the introduction so far. I suspect this is going to take me several weeks to get through, while I read other books alongside. But so far, so good (the book, not Blair).
Blogs: well, the blog du jour of the past week was apparently this one, after my post on sub-editors. First, Greenslade picked it up, then it attracted attention here, here, here, here and here. Not to mention the comments on my original post by Jeff Jarvis, among others. Looks like I touched a nerve, then... I'm pleased - this is an important debate to have. I can see the validity of the argument that news blogging is about the here and now, the immediacy of getting the news out there, rather than worrying about the typos. But there's a deeper argument to consider, about the need to maintain literacy standards across the board, not for journalists so much as readers. Somehow, I don't think this topic is going to go away. On a different note, I'm really enjoying the emergence of the new TNTJ blog ring run by young journalists who are blogging on the future of journalism. It's got off to a great start and I'm looking forward to following these young hacks.
TV/radio: quite apart from the saturation coverage of a certain sporting event, the TV schedules have been really dull this week. Must be late summer, that limbo between some series ending and the start of the autumn season proper. I watched Boris Johnson discover his roots on Who Do You Think You Are? despite not being a Boris fan. It was unexpectedly interesting, despite Johnson's regular yelps of "Cripes!" and "Wowee!" I suspect the next episode, with Jerry Springer, will be a lot better, though, not least because Johnson has little charisma on camera.
Books: it's been a busy week, with little time for bedtime reading. I have managed to start Alistair's Campbell's The Blair Years, however, although I've only read the foreword to the paperback edition and the introduction so far. I suspect this is going to take me several weeks to get through, while I read other books alongside. But so far, so good (the book, not Blair).
18 August 2008
A luxury? Sub-editors revisited
Over the last few months, media commentators have been engaged in a debate over the future of sub-editors. Jeff Jarvis blogged today in the Guardian that subs are a luxury. But are they? I've posted before on what sub-editors do, so let's look again at what's going on...
A small number of UK newspapers have already dumped their subs completely, not just for online but also print editions too. Newspaper proprietors are largely only concerned with the bottom line so if they can get their product out there for less, they will. Subs do not just clean up typos and dodgy punctuation or cut copy to fit. They also need an excellent working knowledge of media law, which is ever-changing, in order to prevent all kinds of legal howlers that could see a paper being sued. Papers that think they can cut corners by axing subs could be leaving themselves wide open to all kinds of problems.
The downside is that journalists themselves are being asked to sub their own copy. Quite apart from the problems arising when you try to edit your own work, many journalists do not write great English (and rely on the subs desk to do rewrites) and most do not have the comprehensive understanding of media law that subs do, but have only a limited working knowledge of libel law. Beyond that, staff journalists for some years now have been working longer hours in expanded roles (but not for more money, let's not forget that). Now, suddenly, they are being asked to take on the sub-editing that would previously have been someone else's exclusive task.
Jarvis's comment today is the umpteenth run by the Guardian over the last 4 weeks or so. Press Gazette has also covered this thorny issue. I'd take issue with much of what Jarvis says, though. For one thing, blogging is most emphatically not journalism, although it may play a role within journalism and media law is equally applicable, and thus there will remain a need for subs who can edit out legal problems. Secondly, newspapers - at least in the UK - are unlikely to abandon print altogether in the next 10 or even 20 years (you can shoot me if that turns out to be wrong, but then you'd have to shoot a lot of other media commentators too). Thirdly, if a paper gets rid of its editor too, or even its section editors, who then decides on the stance of the paper, the angles it will cover news from, what areas of content it will carry? Who provide direction and guidance, not just to the readers but to the staff?
A freelance copy-editor colleague raised a question today about how Jarvis's vision might affect editors who take on web work. Personally, I don't think it is a major issue for copy-editors moving into web-editing. If they are sub-editing news sites, they should have a copy of McNae's on their desk - it's as essential as a dictionary or any other standard reference work in use by editors. If they are editing for corporates, it's unlikely such clients will choose to cut back on editing when their website and other corporate literature represent their public face and brand and need to maintain a high level of quality.
Is Jarvis right? Or is he misguided? Personally I think copy-editing or sub-editing is about much more than merely cutting copy to fit a CMS template and so I believe there will always be a place for a skilled and experienced editor who is capable of more than a simple tidy-up job.
What do you think?
Edited to add: Roy Greenslade has posted on this issue again this morning. Thanks, Roy.
A small number of UK newspapers have already dumped their subs completely, not just for online but also print editions too. Newspaper proprietors are largely only concerned with the bottom line so if they can get their product out there for less, they will. Subs do not just clean up typos and dodgy punctuation or cut copy to fit. They also need an excellent working knowledge of media law, which is ever-changing, in order to prevent all kinds of legal howlers that could see a paper being sued. Papers that think they can cut corners by axing subs could be leaving themselves wide open to all kinds of problems.
The downside is that journalists themselves are being asked to sub their own copy. Quite apart from the problems arising when you try to edit your own work, many journalists do not write great English (and rely on the subs desk to do rewrites) and most do not have the comprehensive understanding of media law that subs do, but have only a limited working knowledge of libel law. Beyond that, staff journalists for some years now have been working longer hours in expanded roles (but not for more money, let's not forget that). Now, suddenly, they are being asked to take on the sub-editing that would previously have been someone else's exclusive task.
Jarvis's comment today is the umpteenth run by the Guardian over the last 4 weeks or so. Press Gazette has also covered this thorny issue. I'd take issue with much of what Jarvis says, though. For one thing, blogging is most emphatically not journalism, although it may play a role within journalism and media law is equally applicable, and thus there will remain a need for subs who can edit out legal problems. Secondly, newspapers - at least in the UK - are unlikely to abandon print altogether in the next 10 or even 20 years (you can shoot me if that turns out to be wrong, but then you'd have to shoot a lot of other media commentators too). Thirdly, if a paper gets rid of its editor too, or even its section editors, who then decides on the stance of the paper, the angles it will cover news from, what areas of content it will carry? Who provide direction and guidance, not just to the readers but to the staff?
A freelance copy-editor colleague raised a question today about how Jarvis's vision might affect editors who take on web work. Personally, I don't think it is a major issue for copy-editors moving into web-editing. If they are sub-editing news sites, they should have a copy of McNae's on their desk - it's as essential as a dictionary or any other standard reference work in use by editors. If they are editing for corporates, it's unlikely such clients will choose to cut back on editing when their website and other corporate literature represent their public face and brand and need to maintain a high level of quality.
Is Jarvis right? Or is he misguided? Personally I think copy-editing or sub-editing is about much more than merely cutting copy to fit a CMS template and so I believe there will always be a place for a skilled and experienced editor who is capable of more than a simple tidy-up job.
What do you think?
Edited to add: Roy Greenslade has posted on this issue again this morning. Thanks, Roy.
24 July 2008
Food for thought
Restaurant critic Giles Coren is the target of much amusement in the hackosphere today. He had the temerity to fire off an abusive email to the subs desk at The Times because one of them cut a one-letter word from one of his reviews.
Giles, Giles, did no one ever tell you that having a go at the subs desk is akin to a waiter pissing in your soup after you told them it was too cold?
Most sub-editors work incredibly hard under appalling pressure to get stuff ready for publication on time. It's a thankless task and not that well paid for the most part. I have written at length about what subs do.
Coren has basically thrown all his toys out of the pram for the sake of an indefinite article, while managing to be abusive, pompous and childish. As a fellow hack pointed out, if half the subs involved didn't get the alleged joke that was "ruined", it's unlikely most of the readers would, too. It wasn't even that funny a joke, anyway, so it not going into print is no great loss.
Most journalists would greatly improve their writing skills by doing a spell on the subs desk. I spent nearly 4 years subbing in London and it made a huge difference to the quality of my writing, as well as giving me enormous insight into how much and how often the subs save the bacon of many a reputation when it comes to fact-checking and flagging up potential legal issues.
Coren is undoubtedly going to get much flak from the Times' subs in future, especially whichever poor sod is on shift when he files his copy. Let's hope they call him up to discuss every single copy change required. One by one.
And with any luck, it'll make any other celebrity writers think twice about being abusive to the skilled subs who polish their turds.
Late PM edit: Coren has been the talk of everywhere today. Someone claiming to be Giles Coren even popped up on Twitter railing against any other hack who dared to comment on his sweary tantrum (although sadly not me). Other journos dug up his winning entry for the 2005 Bad Sex in Fiction Award, to add to the embarrassment. All very distracting. It's amazing I got any work done, what with Coren, Max Mosley winning his case against the News of the World and the Facebook libel case...
Giles, Giles, did no one ever tell you that having a go at the subs desk is akin to a waiter pissing in your soup after you told them it was too cold?
Most sub-editors work incredibly hard under appalling pressure to get stuff ready for publication on time. It's a thankless task and not that well paid for the most part. I have written at length about what subs do.
Coren has basically thrown all his toys out of the pram for the sake of an indefinite article, while managing to be abusive, pompous and childish. As a fellow hack pointed out, if half the subs involved didn't get the alleged joke that was "ruined", it's unlikely most of the readers would, too. It wasn't even that funny a joke, anyway, so it not going into print is no great loss.
Most journalists would greatly improve their writing skills by doing a spell on the subs desk. I spent nearly 4 years subbing in London and it made a huge difference to the quality of my writing, as well as giving me enormous insight into how much and how often the subs save the bacon of many a reputation when it comes to fact-checking and flagging up potential legal issues.
Coren is undoubtedly going to get much flak from the Times' subs in future, especially whichever poor sod is on shift when he files his copy. Let's hope they call him up to discuss every single copy change required. One by one.
And with any luck, it'll make any other celebrity writers think twice about being abusive to the skilled subs who polish their turds.
Late PM edit: Coren has been the talk of everywhere today. Someone claiming to be Giles Coren even popped up on Twitter railing against any other hack who dared to comment on his sweary tantrum (although sadly not me). Other journos dug up his winning entry for the 2005 Bad Sex in Fiction Award, to add to the embarrassment. All very distracting. It's amazing I got any work done, what with Coren, Max Mosley winning his case against the News of the World and the Facebook libel case...
29 April 2008
In praise of subs
The boffins at the University of Manchester have being doing some research into page architecture. Put in simple English, that means they have been analysing page layouts for newspapers. Despite the somewhat negative headline, it's actually a huge thumbs-up for the unsung heroes of the press - the hardworking sub-editors.
The subs' desk is basically where a paper or magazine is put together. All the copy for publication passes through here before the presses roll. The subs don't just clean up journalists' typos, grammar and punctuation. Oh no. The list of tasks is massive:
Page layout is something subs have been doing for years. I used to be a layout sub myself back in the late 80s and early 90s, firstly paper mock-ups then later on-screen in Quark Xpress. There's a certain skill to it, which can be picked up fairly quickly, but you'll never make a good layout sub if you can't do all the other bits of the job. True, the pages are first laid out in templates by the page designers, but the subs themselves will create the live article pages within the confines of the template. It's good to see that recognised.
The other reason that subs are unsung heroes is this - when a sub does their job well, it goes unnoticed. But you can bet the journalist with the byline will be the one to pick up the praise: "Loved your article on tractor mechanics in Albania, fascinating!" Unbeknown to the reader, the article is only fabulous because the sub-editor rewrote the crap copy filed by the hack, which was far too long, had numerous errors and was generally unreadable before being polished for publication. I've lost count of the number of times I've saved some hack's reputation. Naturally, my own copy is always damn near perfect when I file, because I've seen it from both sides. And the proof is the comments I get back thanking me for work that needed very little subbing.
The downside is when a sub fucks up. It happens. Like the time I subbed a 2,000-word feature and wrote all the captions for the pics then was told to cut 500 words as a half-page had been sold to an advertiser. I duly slashed the copy, failing to notice that I'd axed a critical comment I'd pulled out to use as a caption. Needless to say, the company featured in the article was furious, my boss saw red and I got an almighty bollocking, but (fortunately) not the sack. But we won't talk about the downsides...
The subs' desk is basically where a paper or magazine is put together. All the copy for publication passes through here before the presses roll. The subs don't just clean up journalists' typos, grammar and punctuation. Oh no. The list of tasks is massive:
- correcting typos, grammar and punctuation
- fact-checking
- spellchecking place names, foreign words and people
- putting copy into house style
- flagging up copy that might be defamatory or otherwise legally dubious
- rewriting
- cutting copy to fit the page (or, conversely, lengthening it if needs be)
- writing headlines, picture captions and sells/standfirsts (the big paragraph under the title that persuades you to read the article)
- laying out the pages
Page layout is something subs have been doing for years. I used to be a layout sub myself back in the late 80s and early 90s, firstly paper mock-ups then later on-screen in Quark Xpress. There's a certain skill to it, which can be picked up fairly quickly, but you'll never make a good layout sub if you can't do all the other bits of the job. True, the pages are first laid out in templates by the page designers, but the subs themselves will create the live article pages within the confines of the template. It's good to see that recognised.
The other reason that subs are unsung heroes is this - when a sub does their job well, it goes unnoticed. But you can bet the journalist with the byline will be the one to pick up the praise: "Loved your article on tractor mechanics in Albania, fascinating!" Unbeknown to the reader, the article is only fabulous because the sub-editor rewrote the crap copy filed by the hack, which was far too long, had numerous errors and was generally unreadable before being polished for publication. I've lost count of the number of times I've saved some hack's reputation. Naturally, my own copy is always damn near perfect when I file, because I've seen it from both sides. And the proof is the comments I get back thanking me for work that needed very little subbing.
The downside is when a sub fucks up. It happens. Like the time I subbed a 2,000-word feature and wrote all the captions for the pics then was told to cut 500 words as a half-page had been sold to an advertiser. I duly slashed the copy, failing to notice that I'd axed a critical comment I'd pulled out to use as a caption. Needless to say, the company featured in the article was furious, my boss saw red and I got an almighty bollocking, but (fortunately) not the sack. But we won't talk about the downsides...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
