Crash Course in Copy Editing

Because starting on the desk as a copy editor is not less than being a writer so you don't "work your way up" from the desk to being a writer. And I'd be willing to wager that the person who made the original post has had his butt saved more times than he'd care to admit by some copy editor who he mistakenly believes is a step below him on the ladder.

 

easy, easy tx. s/he's just a rookie. i still respect you.

 

yeah, yeah, yeah. they all say they'll still respect me but never call the next day. ;D

 

txsports, please pick up the white phone, you ...

 

That's right. You work your way up from being a writer to being on the desk (at least that's what happened in my case).

 

Make sure you read over the copy after you've made changes. It really sucks when a story has errors edited into it.

 

good point. also try not to use my lead for your headline

 

unless it makes for a great headline for which you can take credit. and remember to change the lead.

 

If you want a tire iron to your head

 

The folks trotting out their pet peeves are doing Rolling a disservice here. Good copy editing isn't about changing "over" to "more than." The search-and-replace aspects of the job are the easiest to learn and the ones that have the least effect on readers. Better that Rolling learn the stylebook cold, doublecheck the math, learn to spot logic and sequencing errors and cross-check elements of the story against verifiable sources, notably the agate.

There's no greater liability on a copy desk than the editor who can change every victory "over" to a victory "against" but can't spot the glaring logic problem in the second graf. Better to have someone who can do both, but in a pinch, give me the editor who's going to improve the substance of the story.

 

I like the suggestion of reading the story over completely once before you get into making changes, sometimes it saves you a lot of time if something is down lower. I also like the suggestion of consulting with writers if there is major surgery to be done.

 

I agree, but I'd put the stylebook lower on the list. I was on a tryout for my first major metro and the hiring editor explained to me the difference between technical editing and conceptual editing. He said it was easy to find to the former, but if I wanted the job I had to demonstrate the latter, and if he had to make a decision on me after the first two days of the five-day tryout, I wasn't going to get the job. Start challenging copy, improve it, don't just clean it. I went at it and won the job.

And I have to add that it's important that people who run desks be completely clear with their people about expectations and articulate those, just as that editor did on my tryout. Help people succeed, that's part of your job. A few years ago I got a call from a large paper asking me for a reference on a former colleague who I think is tremendous. Apparently someone had told them that he tended to "overexplain instructions," annoying some people. I told them that I vastly preferred this guy's method to those who expect mind-reading, that I'm already married and having to read one mind is tough enough, I don't need that at work.

So although I agree with Bump's philosophy, you need to have a heart-to-heart with the person running the desk and see what he/she thinks is important. It's easy for me to say it's more important to get the score right than it is to spot a typo or a style error, but the copy chief at that paper may not agree and that's who is going to evaluate your work.