Denver Post to cut possibly two-thirds of copy editors

From Westword, with a copy of Post editor Greg Moore's e-mail to staff included. Copy editing to shift from departed copy editors to remaining staff.

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/04/denver_post_layoffs_copy_editors.php

It's just sad.

 

Good lord...

 

Wow. Just wow.

Leaving the editing to be done at the "content-generating level" is another way of saying "we aren't going to copy edit anything". From my newspaper days, at different levels and market sizes, I can't imagine some of the raw copy I've dealt with making it into print (or online).

I can understand the appeal of (though don't agree with the effectiveness of) the centralized design and editing hubs. But this is just having no plan at all and just cutting wherever there appears to be warm bodies.

I wonder who's going to take the blame when this blows up in their faces?

 

Heard through the grapevine yesterday that at MediaNews' Bay Area chain (which covers Contra Costa/Oakland/San Jose), the staff has been told that big cuts are coming in the copy-editor ranks and reporters should get comfortable with the idea of writing their own headlines for the print edition. Just a rumor and nothing to link, but I heard it from someone who has been pretty reliable previously.

 

I can't click the link. How soon is this happening?

 

Having been on the desk for years, I cringe just thinking about some of the raw copy I've seen from professional writers, including some very well-paid professional writers. And on the other end, I know how many times I've been saved by someone reading my copy behind me.

Allowing writers to serve as their own editors is a disaster of the first order waiting to happen.

 

They've had a couple round of buyouts and a bunch of non-union managers were let go a couple years ago. I've heard the last round of buyouts was pretty aggressive where they were told, "If you don't take this, the offer might not be as good in a few months..."

They just got rid of two very high-profile columnists...

 

This. I don't care how clean you think your copy is. Every writer needs to be edited.

 

No timetable yet, 96, just reprints an email without specifics and says there will be a Monday staff meeting to talk about details.

And I wonder about the legal aspect of it for potential libel suits down the line. If a company decided to proactively eliminate a line of defense meant to ensure accuracy and fairness, then something libelous makes it into print, wouldn't that just be more of a slam-dunk for the subject to prove their case?

If it's going in that direction, where reporters are their own editors and write their own headlines, etc., I wonder how big of a life change they will have to go through? Will they have to work their normal day shift, then a night shift to write headlines once the pages are designed?

This is such a clearly bad idea on so many levels, I wish it was a joke. But nothing is surprising anymore.

 

I don't disagree with all the comments about the need for editing...But don't most reporters post their copy directly to the website now? I can't imagine waiting for an editor to read a story when news is breaking -- or even when it's not, honestly. And given that the print product is decreasing in importance, copy editors are increasingly seen as a luxury. Bottom line, as newspapers cut, it's better to be a "content producer" than a copy editor.

 

Even the writers who try to self-edit still make mistakes. You need someone else's eyes on your copy.