Mistakes

I'll let you know when I have one of those days where I feel like I've done a good job on both ends...



Perhaps if I stayed in the newspaper business, I'd get better at doing both (and I'd certainly like to be better at both), but since I'm not planning to stay in it, I'll have to be content with the skills I did gather.

And I agree that few people/places have the luxury of dividing that work. My hat's off to anyone who can do them at the same time, and do them well.

 

Damn, you are a fucking idiot. Douchebags like you think errors are simply inevitable, and that nothing should be changed in the current newsroom environment.

How do dipshits like you do or receive an evaluation if there's no standard for catching, or in your case failing to catch, errors? Good looks? Punctuality?

Too many people like you are raising density to a new high in newsrooms. It's absolutely pathetic.

 

After that last rant, I thought I'd recognize this intelligent post.

It's too bad that newsrooms try to beat this attitude out of people.

 

DyePack, we don't even have any proof that you ARE a working journalist. Why would you think we would take what you say with anything more than a shrug of the shoulders, or a snicker?

I just love people who think they have the market cornered on correctness. Your co-workers at Burger King must have a helluva time with you.

 

DP's ideal newspaper. None of that foo-foo design stuff.

 

Lameass dumbass designer response #1. No creativity.

 

Lameass dumbass designer response #2. Design dipshits are so predictable. After all, if I don't want to see ridiculous mistakes, made primarily because designers can't/won't/don't edit, then I must want an outdated paper.

Again, no creativity from design dolts. No shock there.

 

Design is not the reason for mistakes.

A disconnected factor.

 

Beg to differ. Design is used to get out of editing.

In addition, there is no proof that design does anything to attract readers. During its emphasis, circulation has plummeted.

Signs point to that philosophy being a failure. The only people who don't realize it are the designers who use it to get out of editing.

 

Beg to differ again. The designers aren't the ones implementing this philosophy. Let's go higher up on the chain than that. It's the owners who think they can put out a good product by not giving good editors and good designers the resources to do their jobs well. But I'll give you credit for saying that great design does not attract great numbers of readers. You beat that horse dead, but it needs to be beaten.

Dye, you recognized the intelligence of the "Superman" post, and rightfully so. The problem is, most papers ask us to be Supermen. I venture to guess most papers aren't "wasting" their money on a half-dozen designers -- they're spending their money on five jacks-of-all-trades who read, write, edit and design, all at the same time. Consequently, the quality of each is going to suffer. That's not the designer's fault -- you do the best you can with the tools you have. But let's hold the people who actually make those decisions accountable, too.

 

I'd like to offer a humble "amen" here. Don't blame the designers who just want to design but are tasked with editing b/c their bosses can't or (more likely) won't hire another person for the good of the product. Don't blame the copy editors who aren't into design for the same flaw of the system.

 

Doesn't matter who's implementing it. The problem comes when people think the copy editor part of their title doesn't matter and that only designing is important.

Actually, then it does matter who's implementing it, except those people are cowering in their offices rather than addressing the problems.

Also, I fail to see this "great design" that's happening while editing is being ignored. Rarely is it more than slightly above average.