Headline goes here

DP,

Here's the thing you don't seem to appreciate. Sometimes, it does take a long time to make a page look good. I'm guessing you haven't done much intricate design work. Sure, we could go basic, but sometimes you have to build a map to show where someplace is, and sometimes you have to build a graphic to show how much money one school spent on somethine compared to another. Or whatever. And sometimes you have six graphics of varying degrees of difficulty to build. Some of this can be handled by the graphic department at some papers, but sometimes this stuff just comes in too late and there isn't anyone there or it would be too hard to hand it off anyhow.

And sometimes, someone is hired for a design/copy editing job, and when things get sorted out, it's obvious the desk is heavy on people who can edit and light on people who can design, so the person gets put into a position that is mostly if not all design. The reverse happens too, someone gets pigeon-holed into an editing position when they were hired for a copy editing/design role, though that doesn't happen as often. Shouldn't a paper play to its staff's strengths, or should it make someone edit who isn't as good as others so that the whole desk still fits the "design/copy editor" role most desks hire for?

Also, you can be a good editor and still have errors slip onto your page. I'm a pretty good editor myself, but I make mistakes at times now that I'm mostly a designe, esp. when I'm rushing on deadline thanks to late games and the like. I know you hate to hear this, but designers, like reporters, make mistakes. It'd be nice if every reporter and every designer caught all their mistakes, but if they did there wouldn't be a need for copy editors. Now, that's not to excuse errors designers make, but every paper should have a process where work, by designers or writers, is proofed. Anything that's typed in, be it a cutline, a story or a graphic, should be proofed. The people doing the typing are only human, and any human can make a mistake. Even copy editors make mistakes.

A question: Do you think visuals do anything to draw readers in, or do you think a basic layout without much creativity is the way to go so the "designer" can spend more time editing?

And please, before you respond to this, know I'm trying to have a serious discussion. If you can't offer a serious response instead of your usual "Drinking the design Kool-aid" or some such, then just say you don't have a reply and move on.

 

Completely missing the point. They're not even being hired for their editing skills. Whether they can edit doesn't matter to the people who hired them or are "evaluating" them.

Sorry, you forfeited the chance for a serious response with your third sentence.

Hope the Kool-Aid tastes good.

 

What? The Kool-Aid comment? I didn't mean it as a slight. Sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to get a serious answer, to see how you think. I may have tried to head off your usual responses at the pass, but you usual responses do usually boil down to something along those lines.

And I didn't forfeit anything. I figured you wouldn't make a response. I tried to have a serious discussion about it, but you resorted to your usual childish antics. It seems you're good at hurling insults at designers, but when one asks a real question, you dodge answering it. So be it. But I figured all along it would boil down to you dodging any real answers. That's you're M.O.

 

The same question has been asked and answered. There's not much point in debating the editing "skills" of people who aren't hired for them, aren't required to use them, aren't evaluated on them, and who take pleasure in thumbing their noses at anyone who thinks they need to use them.