UPDATED View From the Trenches

For people not acquainted with copy editors, it may seem rather remarkable that it took two people, one a columnist at The Washington Post, and the other a former copy editor who writes for The New York Times, to push us into speaking up a little louder on what is happening to our craft and profession.

But we need to speak up, now. And I want our industry leaders to talk to us. No. Talk with us before it is too late. Because it's not just newspapers you are wrecking. It is journalism. The building is on fire and, in some places, the arsonists are in charge.

I beg the industry for an honest conversation. Do you want journalism to survive? Do you want your print readers to go away? If you want them online so you can eliminate production costs, do you plan to offer them anything besides the latest celebrity scandal? Are you Pro Publica or TMZ? What do you hope to have left standing in a year? Five years? Besides your own career, your bonuses for trimming staff, that is.

The American Copy Editors Society came about in part in response to what we saw happening a dozen years ago, more work being put on the copy desk while the level of respect was declining. Not that there was ever a lot of respect but in those days, we were hearing stories about reporters posting snotty anonymous notes on newsroom bulletin boards, griping about the copy desk; troubled reporters were "demoted" to copy desk; copy editors were routinely finding that they were paid less than reporters, and too much work formerly done in production shops was landing on our heads. The newspaper industry could see that we were tired of it; the time was ripe to speak up. And so we did.

But the question has to be raised: is it too late? Is the trainwreck that is newspaper leadership in too many places going to continue to throw everyone onto the tracks in an effort to save their jobs, temporarily bolster their paychecks and stock prices? Have they no shame? Have they no interest in preserving their core product, the quality of a newspaper, no commitment to public service? Is panic drowning all common sense?

Having just fired off a series of notes about the new site Why Editing Matters I'm not yet sure what to think or whether it's time to put our pencils down and walk away. My e-mails got the kinds of comments copy editors often give. One extremely competent editor responded with this:

One gloomy headline after another on Romensko today. And this? What good will it do? The folks who run our companies won't read it. And even if they say they value what we do, there'll still be bloodbath after staffing bloodbath, and the powers that be will go for copy editors... before cutting local reporters....

What is particularly disturbing about this response is that the editor may well be right. In the past, copy editors escaped some of the worst of the cuts because often newspaper editors hadn't a clue how to get the paper out without them. Technology had left top editors behind while others thought they were too important to learn a little code, a little computter savvy. Now technology has automated certain functions, templates are used lay out pages, and the attitude of senior editors often seems to be, well, we'll live with the rest. (Automated systems give you stuff like this, by the way.)

So what if that bad sentence that can be read three different ways gets into print.

So what if we're unfair to the suspect in that police story and it turns out he's not guilty.

So what if we say the former governor had been arrested when he had simply resigned. We'll run a correction. Or not.

So what if we aren't serving our readers. So what if readers tell you that there are too many ads in the paper, when what they really mean is that there aren't enough stories.

And even having said that, that portrays us as purely stopping a negative rather than adding to the value of the product. So talk with us, if you don't know what you're doing. Even if you think that you do.

If we're not going to give our readers what they need--an examination of issues that goes beyond whether Hillary Clinton cackles or Tim Russert is still dead--then we need quality. Surely at least some top editors must realize that reporters are not perfect, that there is a benefit to maintaining a team of people who spot the errors, realize that story the city desk is so excited about is deeply flawed, who know something more about what is going in the world than the summer intern knows. And that knowledge has a value.

Would it be better if we stopped what used to be staff reductions that resembled paper cuts that have turned into throat slashings and get off paper and move the entire news operation online? Stop this death by a thousand cuts and move now? I love the feel and smell of a newspaper but I love journalism more. (It is not an accident that most of the better political blogs and websites are run by people who started in print so it can be done.)

Over the years, copy editors often said, under their breaths, they need us, we stop the libel. But frankly, that doesn't seem to matter much anymore to some people. If you're willing to give up your last line of defense, have you given up thinking that there's anything left to defend?


UPDATE: Some blogs comment on the value of editing and outsourcing of issue:

Some blogs note the outsourcing of copy editing:

As usual, John McIntyre expresses himself quite well.

Kathy Schenck weighed in last week.

David Sullivan was a bit more upbeat on the previously mentioned Newseum issue.

Bill Walsh


Shaping the Future of Newspapers


Foothill Cities Blog


Here and There


Mike Cane


The Cranky Copy Editor

UPDATE More on the Copy-Editing Column

Time to cowboy up, people. I'm collecting examples of why we're needed. Others welcome to join in.



Several people responded to the Lawrence Downes' piece about the future of copy editing with a letter to The New York Times.

The ACES board also wrote.

But Brayden Simms writes about losing his new copy-editing job at the Miami Herald and says the work has been outsourced to India.

In the past, copy editors were often exempt or less affected by buyouts than were reporters. It appears those days are over, especially if this kind of thinking is what drives executives with no newspaper background to make the decisions they're making.

UPDATE: And then there's this.

An Indian company will take over copy editing duties for some stories published in The Orange County Register and will handle page layout for a community newspaper at the company that owns the Pulitzer Prize-winning daily, the newspaper confirmed Tuesday.

Orange County Register Communications Inc. will begin a one-month trial with Mindworks Global Media at the end of June, said John Fabris, a deputy editor at the Register.

Editors at Mindworks will work five shifts a week for one month, performing layout for the community paper and editing some stories in the flagship Register, Fabris said. Staffing at the company will not be affected, he said.

Uproar in Copy Editor Land

Well, Lawrence Downes sure stirred things up yesterday with his piece about copy editors, their future and their absence from the Newseum.

I found myself on four different group e-mails yesterday, some focused on the Newseum angle, others on whether Downes is right about the future of copy editing.

There is talk about sending letters to the Newseum people. I hope, though, that the more significant issue--the discussion of the future of copy editing--not get lost in the rush to tweak the Newseum team by making sure our tools and product are on display. Taking on the Newseum, though, is a good first start.

If you're interested in contributing to the discussion, let me know and I'll add you to the merged e-mail list. Or whatever you'd like.

And of course, the most famous headline of a generation. Sam Houston State University has a copy of this paper under glass.

Surprise. We're Not There.

Lawrence Downes always has something intelligent to say. Here's more proof.

I went to the Newseum, a shiny new building in Washington that news companies and foundations have erected as a shrine to their industry. Since it’s my industry, too, I thought a museum, where sacred relics and texts have been placed safely in the equivalent of a big glass jar, might make me hopeful about the future.


“Where’s the section on copy editing?” I asked the guy at the entrance.

Over the weekend, I'd planned to comment on the incongruity of a museum devoted to journalism and the First Amendment refusing to discuss its attendance but Downes' piece stands out on its own.

This lack of recognition for copy editors is why ACES was formed and awards prizes and scholarships. The industy has simply failed to recognize our value and now, thanks to the web, has decided, in many cases, that quality work really isn't all that important. Just take a look at the headlines appearing on many web sites and that should tell you all you need to know about journalism's commitment to quality.

By the way, I don't think reduced quality is limited to journalism; service in stores, the ability to reach a company on the phone, the availability of workers when you need help--the standards are, in many cases, vanishing. Yes, I know, I sound like an old fart. But even old farts are sometimes right.

It's Not Just Political Correctness

If you want to read an excellent, crystal-clear piece on the negativity of "illegal" as in "illegal alien," see Lawrence Downes' op-ed in The New York Times today.
You don't have to agree with the people who advocate amnesty or who think there should be an open border--and I don't entirely --to appreciate what Lawrence is saying about language. He puts the word into context of what's legal or not; what other "crimes" are brushed off in our society. This may make you think beyond the matter of political correctness.

Should be required reading for those obsessed with the immigration issue, like Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly or Michelle Malkin. Did I mention Lou Dobbs?

This is just great. Anti-Immigrant Groups Link to Fake CNN Story Claiming Hispanics Started Wildfires