Denver Post to cut possibly two-thirds of copy editors

Some do, some don't. Some policies cover entire verdicts, some policies cover verdicts only above a certain amount. Just like health insurance or car insurance, there's usually a deductible that has to be paid first. Don't get caught up on the specific dollar figure I mentioned ... a libel judgment against you is still costly, both financially and in terms of reputation. Dismantling your copy desk ultimately is a penny-wise, pound-foolish measure.

 

The longer I do this, the more I think it's less a matter of training/experience than it is personality type. Not everyone is wired to scrutinize stories in this particular way or admit they may be in over their heads and call in the lawyer. Not many people would describe me as super-collaborative in general or especially humble, but I am in this area. The people who have problems on this type of thing are people who are geared to thinking that if they wrote/edited something, it is OK or they wouldn't have written/edited it that way. They also tend to want to make such decisions themselves rather than risk looking dumb or scared in front of subordinates or bosses. That type of person can have three weeks' experience or three decades' and they compose roughly half of any paper's writing staffs and copy desks. I was among those who lobbied hard for bringing in the lawyer to talk to our newsroom, but I am not expecting miracles from everyone.

 

I linked to the article in Westword and then started linking to other articles about the Post. The paper has a reporter, Michael Roberts, who follows the Post closely. He wrote a recent article saying the paper will reduce pages by 18 a week, with 10 coming from Sports. If this is true it looks like more than copy editors will be fired.

 

Reporters and other editors might be surprised to learn how much dirty work magically gets done by the copy desk.

 

Empty suits running newspapers: "Why do we need copy editors? Isn't that why there's spell check and grammar correction programs?"

Regarding those who point out that writers post breaking news stories directly to the web ... Sure, the rush to be first is paramount. But what's wrong with having a writer post a few grafs on a breaking story and then have a copy editor immediately give it a read and double checking that the writer hasn't typed "one" when he meant "won"?

But considering we're in a WTF, LMFAO time in society, WGAF?

 

From the perspective of the print edition, I wonder if this means all design is going to be standardized -- the baseball gamer gets a one-column headline, the top local story gets a 6-column banner every day, etc. Otherwise are reporters going to be redoing headlines from home if they submit the story before the page is designed?

 

Except it's not usually "immediately."

A story could be posted online at 10 a.m. with a boatload of errors, and it may not be until a copy editor sees that story on his duty roster around 5 p.m. that it will get a look.

And it's not even "urgent" stories, in which case an argument could be made for getting it out there quickly. I've seen error-riddled high school district tennis tournament stories posted online 2-3 hours before anyone gave them a look. Did this really HAVE to go online at 2 p.m. instead of 5?

I don't think they mean it quite that literally. Reporters in many places are told to place a multi-media head on their stories (for online SEO purposes), and the headline is usually tweaked by an assigning editor or copy editor. The duties will simply fall more to the assigning editor, or whatever "production" person is left to typeset the page.

Regarding standardized design, Tribune has been doing it for more than a year. Look at any baseball page from a Tribune paper. No-hitter is treated no differently than any other baseball lead story any other day. A 9-8, 16-inning box score magically takes the same space as a 1-0, one-hitter box score.

 

Ain't that the damn truth.

I wonder who is behind all this. I can't fathom a seasoned editor would agree to this without a fight. It has to be coming from bean counters who know little about journalism. Oh, well, they'll reap what they sow.

 

Design is becoming paint by numbers. Story A here, six-column headline across top of page. Story B here, one column down the side. Story C here, large center photo and story beneath it. I worked at a paper that did that, every single freakin' day, no variations. It was mind-numbing. Could have hired a high schooler to lay it out.

 

Every writer should have to work a copy editor shift, maybe only 1-2 a year, to remind them what the desk has to go through on deadline.

When you're told to write 15 inches and you file 22, you just became a colossal pain in the ass to somebody.

When you file something on deadline and have facts that the desk has to check, you just became a colossal pain in the ass to somebody.

Dealing with assholes like that as an intern made me NEVER, EVER do that as a writer.

 

Great point! One editor I worked for thought all reporters should take a rotation as a copy editor and copy editors a rotation as a reporter. It helps each side know what the other deals with, both pro and con.

Having spent plenty of time in each capacity, I believe I developed that appreciation. And, yes, it made me better in both roles.

 

Once wrote in a story that a defensive coordinator told his "linebackers to shift to the right" to slow down a certain play.

Except I didn't actually write "shift." I wrote "shit." Under deadline and with time to just quickly proofread, I sent it with the S-word in.

Luckily, we had a copy editor that found it, called me and asked what I meant to say, and corrected it. I knew copy editors were important before that, but I didn't realize just how important until after that.