As a stringer, do I have the right to complain about copy editors?

Yeah, it sucks, but that's pretty much teh way it goes everywhere. I wouldn't be concerned in the least with 16 inches being cut to 13, but I would definitely ask about the lead being completely changed. Thing is, make sure you do it in a professional, inquisitive way, not a "my copy is untouchable" way.

 

Here's another thing.. this writer turned in his stuff an hour early, so it seems like this is a case of a good deed getting punished. If he had turned in the story 15 minutes before deadline, the likelihood of his lede getting messed with might have been less. I'm not saying he should do that, but you know you think about that.

 

Superfly, EVERY paper has to tweak the work of EVERY writer, including stringers, on deadline.

The lead NFL guy might be told the hole is 25, but for whatever reason, it ends up at 23.5. So something's going to come out.

Butchering the lead isn't the way to do it -- unless the lead is really bad.

 

To be honest, though, whacking off the lede is sometimes the easiest and best fix.

 

Bottom line: I think it's good when a change like that bothers you. Shows you care.

Unless they're assholes, there's nothing wrong with talking to them, civilly, about it.

But, bottom line, I agree with the above: If you get paid, that's the most important thing.

 

Hey Snuka,

Is your head still spinning from that coconut shot to your skull from Piper?

Stringers should be happy they're getting paid. I feel for you in regard to the story being cut, but deal with it. There's plenty going on and things do change as the paper's deadline approaches.

Good luck to you.

 

Just deal with it.

As a writer/editor, if you let your ego become consumed with every last tweak of a story -- or in some cases, relatively sizable cuts in a story -- you'll never make it. I know when I'm in that boat as a writer, I NEVER complain about cuts made because I don't know what dynamics the person who made the cut had to juggle. Cuts of stories, placement in the section you think didn't gave it correct play -- that's life in the big city.

I agree, though, that a lede should be the last thing touched unless it is really shitty. After killing shit that appears elsewhere that hasn't already been wiped out (breakout, box score info, etc.) the next thing I go for is extraneous quotes, because there's usually several.

Some writers seem to think its passed down from the Vatican that you must have a quote from each coach, a player on both teams, etc. The key is getting GOOD quotes from both sources and if you don't have them, they're expendable regardless of whether they're the only quote from that source in the story, at least that's how I cut 'em.

 

There's a kernal of truth in that, but here's the flipside:

As a designer, I can tell you the FIRST story that comes in is the LEAST LIKELY story to be cut (especially if it comes in at the budgeted length).

And the LAST story to come in --- on a night with a tight newshole --- is the MOST LIKELY story to get cut.

That applies, of course, to newshole concerns.

If the story is wordy or the lead is deemed bad . . . that's up to the individual copy editor or the slot to do with it as they deem fit.

I've seen 15 inches cut to 11 simply by making every word count and not losing a single (important) fact. With stringers at our paper, this is pretty much the norm. We tell them 10-12 KNOWING that by the time the story is fit for publication it will only be 7-8 inches. Our copy editors make our stringers' stories read a lot more professional than they ever were when they were originally filed.

 

As long as you get paid and keep getting assignments, don't complain.

 

Have we forgotten all our training? If you're writing a deadline gamer or sidebar, pyramid style is SOP. I know we hate to have our work cut, because we think of all the stuff we left out to get those 2-3 grafs in. But stuff happens on deadline. Maybe another story broke. Maybe the former governor died (re Ann Richards in Texas this week). Nobody's copy is inviolate. Or maybe the designer just miscalculated and something had to give.

Maybe your lede was good. Or maybe the second editor (likely the slot editor) thought it read too much like another story on the page or the section. Best approach would be to get on the phone with whoever hired you, ask why your lede didn't work so you know the next time to avoid something. Shows you're willing to work with them and not just whining about changes.

And as long as you got paid, smile all the way to the bank.

 

Also understand that every copy editor is different. Our staff that does the high school games works pretty closely with the copy editors. I'm usually down there anyway, and the first question I ask is "standard length?" (assuming 12 inches). If they say go short, I go short. If they say go a little longer and leave some stuff to trim, then so be it.

If you ask the questions beforehand, chances are your story will get decent play and/or won't be cut to shreds. Of course, that also depends on the copy.

No story is perfect... except mine. Now give me my goddamn Pulitzer. (sarcasm font here)

 

I think that example needs a qualifier, SF.

To me, writers are part of the whole. The writers, photographers, page designers, agate folks, copy editors all have an important role in the way the section turns out. Very rarely does one trump the other. For example, it's always funny when I tell a young writer who might be a little full of ego that the picture than accompanied their masterpiece was probably of more interest to readers than their story.

The so-called "creative" people in that process -- the writers and photographers -- are generally the last people who understand the above example. Too many writers and photogs enter this business thinking the newspaper is a vehicle for them, when in fact, they're a vehicle for the newspaper.

When a writer/photog puts his ego regarding how a story was cut or how a photo is cropped, etc., ahead of the process, they're usually not coming from a position of how the paper was hurt, but usually from a position of how THEY were hurt. I've seen good writers/photogs who caused problems in newsrooms by putting themselves over the product. No one is bigger than the product we put out.

So as an editor, I wouldn't mind the question about the cuts, I answer them all the time. But the person asking the question better be ready for an honest answer and accept it.

The minute I hear something along the lines of, "Well, this story could have been shorter to fit my story" is when I know that 95 percent of the time, they didn't give two shits about anything but themselves and I tune them out, or if they persist, kindly tell them to shut the hell up.