I keep reading this figure, that a Washington Post story once got "12 touches" and that sounds absurd and it seems to get thrown around as an excuse to do dumb things.
But who are the 12? If it's a complex story that has gone back from assigning editor to assistant managing editor, back to reporter, back to assigning desk, then graphics, layout and then various people on the copy desk, well, that's one thing. But I don't think that's an argument for eliminating copy desks or chiefs, as the Post is busy doing these days, but rather for fixing the system. Or maybe the story was a piece of garbage that merited lots of touches in an attempt to salvage it. We've all seen those stories, haven't we?
I once worked on a 13-part series that was two years in the making that had gone round and round through various editors. It was literally in proof stage on a Friday night, for Sunday edition use, when the executive editor decided it needed a major overhaul and started doing things like pulling the second sidebar for day 3 into the mainbar for day 8 and so on and so on. It was a nightmare. The overtime made me rich. But that is the fault of someone other than the copy desk.
Regardless, Tim McGuire, who has been a supporter of both the American Copy Editors Society and the team concept, makes some important points here. I just don't know if anyone with a finger on the budget will listen.
Given the destruction of newspapers and the many new models for delivery of news, there is room for a redeployment of people's skills, certainly. Smart editors would figure out a way to identify and then best use those skills since people aren't interchangeable parts.
But the wholesale destruction of quality control is absolutely idiotic. Copy editors have been in the forefront of technological changes for as long as I've been in the news business. It is insanity to disregard those skills and ability to adapt by getting rid of them. Over the years, I have periodically encountered senior editors who professed shock at suddenly discovering how rough their reporters' copy is. I think we can see some of what happens without editing when we look at websites where editing is a secondary consideration, at best.
Really, if you don't care about the quality issue, what are you doing in the business? Go do something else. I'm tired of the woe-is-me-I-have-to-cut-my-staff-again attitude. Do something to maintain quality or get the hell out because your product is pretty much so thoroughly devalued that no one wants it.
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Friday, August 28, 2009
Close Enough Isn't Good Enough
Words matter. When paraphrasing, it's never a good idea to get ahead of the facts, as this Politico story about Ted Kennedy does in describing his efforts to get a successor chosen.In his final days, he focused on a narrow political goal, pleading with state to change state law to posthumously fill his Senate seat with an interim appointee who would be a vote in favor of the health care legislation he championed.
Not really. The letter urged a replacement, certainly, but made no mention of health care. Kennedy definitely didn't ask anyone to "fill his Senate seat with an interim appointee who would be a vote in favor of the health care legislation" he supported. The problem with sloppy paraphrasing is that it creeps into the conversation. Someone else picks up this language, writes the same thing, and then pretty soon you have the dying Kennedy trying to skew the law and selection process for one goal only. Not true, as you can see from this WashPost story.
The letter, first obtained by the Boston Globe, asks the state's Democratic-controlled legislature to allow Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D) to select a temporary replacement should a vacancy occur. Such a move would reverse a provision in state law that says a vacant U.S. Senate seat can be filled only through a special election held at least 145 days after the seat comes open, which would leave Massachusetts with just one senator for several months.
Left unsaid in the letter is the fact that the change could ensure that Democrats do not miss a key Senate vote should Kennedy die amid the debate on health-care reform, long one of his passions. Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate with Kennedy present, and they might need every one of them if the chamber's 40 Republicans are united in opposing a reform bill.
"I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their senator," Kennedy wrote in the letter, dated July 2 but sent to state officials this week, referring to the provision calling for elections to fill vacancies. "I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."
And on a related note, I wonder why so many really sickening Photoshopped pictures of Kennedy appear in the top Google search returns.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Loss of Quality
The Washington Post's ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, writes today about an increase in errors, under the headline "Fewer Copy Editors, More Errors". Most copy editors I know would respond:
Of course
What did you expect?
Told you so
No shit, Sherlock
or offer any number of similar sad and weary answers.
You cut your quality-control experts, disparage their professionalism and talent and, wow, what a suprise. Quality suffers.
The issue, though, to me is this: does quality matter anymore?
I think there's a profound change in expectations and standards in the last few years, deeper than Twitter, citizen journalism or blogs, by which we find or report news.
We're all kind of beta testers now, expected to put up far less than perfection. Just as that little gizmo you bought down at the big-box tech store often doesn't initially work the way it should, or requires hours of effort and frustration with non-supportive support lines, so, too, journalism is less than what it could or should be. Your expectations are lowered and the idea that a store selling you electronic toys or a journalism organization telling you what you need to know should try to deliver quality the first time is simply fading away.
Have you ever spent an hour or more on a tech help line, only to have your concerns blown off? Or have a help desk act as if crappy performance is normal and hint that you're being unreasonable for expecting more? So, too with news. So what if the story fails to answer key questions? Has typos or poor grammar? You get the general idea, right?
As consumers, we have learned to settle for less. And I fear no one cares.
That's a bitter pill for copy editors to swallow.
Of course
What did you expect?
Told you so
No shit, Sherlock
or offer any number of similar sad and weary answers.
You cut your quality-control experts, disparage their professionalism and talent and, wow, what a suprise. Quality suffers.
The issue, though, to me is this: does quality matter anymore?
I think there's a profound change in expectations and standards in the last few years, deeper than Twitter, citizen journalism or blogs, by which we find or report news.
We're all kind of beta testers now, expected to put up far less than perfection. Just as that little gizmo you bought down at the big-box tech store often doesn't initially work the way it should, or requires hours of effort and frustration with non-supportive support lines, so, too, journalism is less than what it could or should be. Your expectations are lowered and the idea that a store selling you electronic toys or a journalism organization telling you what you need to know should try to deliver quality the first time is simply fading away.
Have you ever spent an hour or more on a tech help line, only to have your concerns blown off? Or have a help desk act as if crappy performance is normal and hint that you're being unreasonable for expecting more? So, too with news. So what if the story fails to answer key questions? Has typos or poor grammar? You get the general idea, right?
As consumers, we have learned to settle for less. And I fear no one cares.
That's a bitter pill for copy editors to swallow.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Tales From the Dark Side
John Kelly at The Washington Post reminds us of the myriad ways and reasons newspapermen (and they were nearly all men) got fired in the good old days. And he invites people to tell their tales of firing.
What's the most interesting way you've been fired? Or were you the terminator, not the terminatee? If it's not too painful to talk about, e-mail me the details.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Amazon Takes a Cut, a BIG Cut
This is odd: The Fitz and Jen blog at E&P reports that Amazon.com will keep most of the revenue from its Kindle-newspaper service and, even odder, that only people who live in areas where the newspaper can't be delivered will be able to subscribe through Kindle. What? WHAT? To both elements of this story.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
All I can say is, Holy cow.
Washington Post, Baltimore Sun to Share Content
By Michael S. Rosenwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 23, 2008; 12:04 PM
Editors from The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun said today that they have agreed to begin sharing certain stories, photos and other news content.
The deal comes as both newspapers, like the rest of the industry, struggle to retain readers and cut costs as the economics of the business shift.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Middle Ground
Deborah Howell at the Washington Post writes about copy editors.
There has to be some happy medium between having 12 people "touch" a story and having someone run a spell check that serves as editing while writing web and print heds, fitting the story to the layout and writing captions.
Nice comments from Dana Priest and others.
There has to be some happy medium between having 12 people "touch" a story and having someone run a spell check that serves as editing while writing web and print heds, fitting the story to the layout and writing captions.
Nice comments from Dana Priest and others.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Copy Editing Gene/Updated
Recovering editor Bob Keane flags this great Gene Weingarten column. Copy editors everywhere salute you, Gene!
UPDATED Here's one, different, take on the value of copy editing.
UPDATED Here's one, different, take on the value of copy editing.
Friday, March 14, 2008
A Baker's Dozen
Far be it from me to tell The Washington Post how to run its desks or know what works best in its newsroom.
And certainly, if this Slate article is correct, the Post is right to take some actions here.
The Slate article focuses on a Washington Post memo that describes a plan to alter how it gets stories from reporters to web and print and beyond.
Here, in part, is what Jack Shafer reports:
The plan also mandates "fewer touches" on some stories by editors, which will elicit cheers from many Post reporters. They've long complained about "drive-by editing" in which editors up and down the chain of command drop into their stories and fiddle with them to the point of destruction. According to the memo, a half-dozen editors routinely make changes on A-section stories, and an internal audit discovered one inside story that 12 different editors changed.
Twelve editors touch a story? Are they kidding? I'm all for flattening out that process, definitely.
"The more people who touch a story, the less authority and responsibility each take," (managing editor Phil) Bennett says.
and
The reason many newspapers rely so heavily on editors—a reason rarely spoken—is that some reporters can't write. Their copy isn't edited as much as it's rewritten. Bennett has a message for them: "Reporters who can't write are a dying breed."
Well, where to begin? On taking responsibility: The copy editors I know who often awake in the middle of the night trying to remember if they took care of something certainly feel a personal responsibility for what they've done or not done to a story. Yes, if you allow a baker's dozen of editors to mess with a story, that's going to dilute a sense of responsibility, I suppose. And I absolutely agree that if you've got copy flowing in horizontal directions, then a vertical copy flow no longer works.
And on writing: It's a lot more than writing at stake. Under increasing pressure to file multiple times a day, to produce, to do video standups, to show up on the company TV or radio program, they also make mistakes. Of course, reporters--and editors-- have always made mistakes. But as staffs shrink and demand for their production grows, what is the logical consequence? They get the date of Nixon's resignation wrong; they report accusations without rebuttal; they omit locations or backgrounds that provide context; they leave out first references; they misstate or misreport what the White House said when or how.
I thought Mark Cuban's comments this week about newspapers needing to differentiate their blogs from others by suggesting, for example, that The New York Times write "The NY Times does not have blogs, we have Real Time Reports from the most qualified reporters in the world," was pretty smart, though maybe too late.
Our brand, our accuracy matters until we've completely given it away. I know some people see this as an old argument and for some, it is simply a rote response to anything new. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have to stop giving away the franchise, cheapening our reporting and report itself, cutting staff under the guise of New Thinking, and remember why people read us. And why we have the protection of the First Amendment, because what we do matters. That should apply to everything we do, from blogs to rapid online rewrites to print and beyond, to whatever comes next. We are not Yahoo, we are not Gawker snark, we are not, heaven help us, Glenn Beck, spewing instead of reporting, editing and informing.
I happen to like blogs, a lot, and read some really terrific breaking-news blogs by newspaper reporters. Some of the stuff produced in the Eliot Spitzer mess this week was truly outstanding (See Dan Janison and John Riley at Newsday, for example. Sorry, I was mostly too busy with this story this week to spend much time reading others.)
And other bloggers, including Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald at Salon and Duncan Black, the economist at Eschaton, are doing original reporting and research that is worth reading every day, not just opining like so many silly TV people. Part of the success of bloggers with little or no journalism experience has to do with the failure of newspapers to report thoroughly, aggressively and accurately. So how does getting down into the mud of unedited or poorly written and reported stories to produce less accurate, less comprehensive stuff a smart idea?
This wanders a bit far from what the Post is saying it intends, I realize. And as I said, much of what the Post editors plan to do to flatten the process makes sense. And, to write tritely, they are not alone. But I cringe when people blame the process instead of the content, especially when what drives some of these changes is staff reduction.
And certainly, if this Slate article is correct, the Post is right to take some actions here.
The Slate article focuses on a Washington Post memo that describes a plan to alter how it gets stories from reporters to web and print and beyond.
Here, in part, is what Jack Shafer reports:
The plan also mandates "fewer touches" on some stories by editors, which will elicit cheers from many Post reporters. They've long complained about "drive-by editing" in which editors up and down the chain of command drop into their stories and fiddle with them to the point of destruction. According to the memo, a half-dozen editors routinely make changes on A-section stories, and an internal audit discovered one inside story that 12 different editors changed.
Twelve editors touch a story? Are they kidding? I'm all for flattening out that process, definitely.
"The more people who touch a story, the less authority and responsibility each take," (managing editor Phil) Bennett says.
and
The reason many newspapers rely so heavily on editors—a reason rarely spoken—is that some reporters can't write. Their copy isn't edited as much as it's rewritten. Bennett has a message for them: "Reporters who can't write are a dying breed."
Well, where to begin? On taking responsibility: The copy editors I know who often awake in the middle of the night trying to remember if they took care of something certainly feel a personal responsibility for what they've done or not done to a story. Yes, if you allow a baker's dozen of editors to mess with a story, that's going to dilute a sense of responsibility, I suppose. And I absolutely agree that if you've got copy flowing in horizontal directions, then a vertical copy flow no longer works.
And on writing: It's a lot more than writing at stake. Under increasing pressure to file multiple times a day, to produce, to do video standups, to show up on the company TV or radio program, they also make mistakes. Of course, reporters--and editors-- have always made mistakes. But as staffs shrink and demand for their production grows, what is the logical consequence? They get the date of Nixon's resignation wrong; they report accusations without rebuttal; they omit locations or backgrounds that provide context; they leave out first references; they misstate or misreport what the White House said when or how.
I thought Mark Cuban's comments this week about newspapers needing to differentiate their blogs from others by suggesting, for example, that The New York Times write "The NY Times does not have blogs, we have Real Time Reports from the most qualified reporters in the world," was pretty smart, though maybe too late.
Our brand, our accuracy matters until we've completely given it away. I know some people see this as an old argument and for some, it is simply a rote response to anything new. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have to stop giving away the franchise, cheapening our reporting and report itself, cutting staff under the guise of New Thinking, and remember why people read us. And why we have the protection of the First Amendment, because what we do matters. That should apply to everything we do, from blogs to rapid online rewrites to print and beyond, to whatever comes next. We are not Yahoo, we are not Gawker snark, we are not, heaven help us, Glenn Beck, spewing instead of reporting, editing and informing.
I happen to like blogs, a lot, and read some really terrific breaking-news blogs by newspaper reporters. Some of the stuff produced in the Eliot Spitzer mess this week was truly outstanding (See Dan Janison and John Riley at Newsday, for example. Sorry, I was mostly too busy with this story this week to spend much time reading others.)
And other bloggers, including Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald at Salon and Duncan Black, the economist at Eschaton, are doing original reporting and research that is worth reading every day, not just opining like so many silly TV people. Part of the success of bloggers with little or no journalism experience has to do with the failure of newspapers to report thoroughly, aggressively and accurately. So how does getting down into the mud of unedited or poorly written and reported stories to produce less accurate, less comprehensive stuff a smart idea?
This wanders a bit far from what the Post is saying it intends, I realize. And as I said, much of what the Post editors plan to do to flatten the process makes sense. And, to write tritely, they are not alone. But I cringe when people blame the process instead of the content, especially when what drives some of these changes is staff reduction.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Please. Tell Us More.
The Washington Post has an odd little bit in its lead story today. I wonder if anyone challenged this phrasing.
"Probably final"? H/t, Talking Points Memo.
For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.
That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight. …
"Probably final"? H/t, Talking Points Memo.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Volunteer "Reporters"
Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post looks at the phenomenon of "citizen journalists" as TV operations rely more on people who send in video clips for broadcast use.
The question, of course, is how long will it be before one of these news operations is hoodwinked by someone goofing on them or trying to push an agenda.
And, there's this weird little item about the Post and an advertising section.
Got a Camera? You, Too, Can Be A Network Reporter
By Howard KurtzWashington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 24, 2007; Page C01
Clarissa Jessup was next in line to ask a question of John Kerry at the University of Florida when another student "stole the mike," she says -- and handed her his digital camera to record the scene.
"The police had already threatened me with arrest" for refusing to "shut up" and sit down as the session was winding down, says Jessup, who adds that she had never met the other student, Andrew Meyer. When Meyer launched into a diatribe, was dragged away by campus cops and subdued with a Taser gun, Jessup, 22, quickly sent the footage to CNN -- because, she says, she wanted national attention and does not like Fox News.
The question, of course, is how long will it be before one of these news operations is hoodwinked by someone goofing on them or trying to push an agenda.
And, there's this weird little item about the Post and an advertising section.
Got a Camera? You, Too, Can Be A Network Reporter
By Howard KurtzWashington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 24, 2007; Page C01
Clarissa Jessup was next in line to ask a question of John Kerry at the University of Florida when another student "stole the mike," she says -- and handed her his digital camera to record the scene.
"The police had already threatened me with arrest" for refusing to "shut up" and sit down as the session was winding down, says Jessup, who adds that she had never met the other student, Andrew Meyer. When Meyer launched into a diatribe, was dragged away by campus cops and subdued with a Taser gun, Jessup, 22, quickly sent the footage to CNN -- because, she says, she wanted national attention and does not like Fox News.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Well, It Sounded Good
Marc Lynch, a political science professor also known as Abu Aardvark,normally writes deep, serious analyses of events in the Middle East, but here notes that The Washington Post may have gotten snookered by an Arab pseudonym. Read down a few graphs; it's worth it.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
'Baghdad Diaries' Fight Gets Even Uglier
It's time for someone to investigate what's going on with the Army and Pvt. Scott Beauchamp to find out the truth about some materials published in The New Republic and whether its author is being punished for having done so.
This fight between TNR and several rightwing blogs and publications has been going on for some time. The rightwingers didn't like the fact that TNR published a series of essays by Pvt. Scott Beauchamp alleging that some bad,though not criminal, actions were committed by some of his fellow soldiers.
Last night, the Weekly Standard published an anonymous, one-sourced story saying that Beauchamp has recanted his "Baghdad Diaries," published in TNR, describing such things as soldiers deliberately running over stray dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. TNR came back and denied that Beauchamp had recanted; the Weekly Standard fired back, insisting it was right.
Now the Washington Post has weighed in, quoting a military official who said an investigation showed that Beauchamp's accusations are false. It doesn't comment on the Standard's report of any recantation.
I don't know if "Baghdad Diaries" is true but it has been clear all along that the rightwing blogs have relied on very little beyond the word of another soldier who is himself under investigation involving his personal fundraising, personal innuendo but very little actual reporting to dispute the essays. The essay may be flawed; they may be fantasy but I haven't seen much beyond shrieking charges of anti-Americanism to prove the claims. If the Weekly Standard is right, good for them.
But so far, its complaints seem rooted in simply disliking what the essayist had to say, which hardly seems justification for the smearing attacks on TNR and on the author.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has an excellent explanation of what has been going on.
This fight between TNR and several rightwing blogs and publications has been going on for some time. The rightwingers didn't like the fact that TNR published a series of essays by Pvt. Scott Beauchamp alleging that some bad,though not criminal, actions were committed by some of his fellow soldiers.
Last night, the Weekly Standard published an anonymous, one-sourced story saying that Beauchamp has recanted his "Baghdad Diaries," published in TNR, describing such things as soldiers deliberately running over stray dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. TNR came back and denied that Beauchamp had recanted; the Weekly Standard fired back, insisting it was right.
Now the Washington Post has weighed in, quoting a military official who said an investigation showed that Beauchamp's accusations are false. It doesn't comment on the Standard's report of any recantation.
I don't know if "Baghdad Diaries" is true but it has been clear all along that the rightwing blogs have relied on very little beyond the word of another soldier who is himself under investigation involving his personal fundraising, personal innuendo but very little actual reporting to dispute the essays. The essay may be flawed; they may be fantasy but I haven't seen much beyond shrieking charges of anti-Americanism to prove the claims. If the Weekly Standard is right, good for them.
But so far, its complaints seem rooted in simply disliking what the essayist had to say, which hardly seems justification for the smearing attacks on TNR and on the author.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall has an excellent explanation of what has been going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)