1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there an editor in the room?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by goalmouth, May 28, 2019.

  1. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

    When the writing is so trite you can't help but notice, especially with two cliches in one sentence up high, in a story peppered with them:

    "The lack of those planes—which many airlines purchased to be their new workhorse of the skies—adds further pressure to carriers and customers at a time when the air travel system traditionally operates at full throttle."
     
  2. SoloFlyer

    SoloFlyer Well-Known Member

    Come on, you know there are no more editors. At least, not any that actually touch copy.
     
  3. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    Blue font for the thread title?
     
  4. Tweener

    Tweener Active Member

    A few obvious fact errors in a recent ESPN feature tells me that even big shops are cutting copy editors. Apparently no longer just a Gannett thing.
     
  5. Fran Curci

    Fran Curci Well-Known Member

    Editing on ESPN.com has gotten very lax. Even its big feature yesterday -- on the Lakers' organizational chaos -- needed another good edit.
     
  6. crimsonace

    crimsonace Well-Known Member

    Editing everywhere has become very lax. We see a lot of major metros and sites making very embarrassing errors.

    But the suits see editors (or, in Gannett parlance, "producers") as being unnecessary fluff because they're not creating content. A lot of the suits consider the newsroom an expense and a liability, not the driver of the product.

    Editors are like good referees - you don't notice them if they're doing their jobs. But you miss them once there's a screw-up. Especially with most places going with young and cheap writers who haven't really had the opportunity to pay their dues at a smaller shop (and make mistakes under a less watchful eye) before getting to a major metro/national website, egregious mistakes and bad writing are much more likely to be published.
     
    I Should Coco and Fran Curci like this.
  7. BurnsWhenIPee

    BurnsWhenIPee Well-Known Member

    At our local Gannett shop, I've been told that there are days (even Saturdays, for the Sunday paper), where there are zero editors (producers) in the newsroom. It's a case where the low-paid, mostly low-experienced writers put their stuff in the system, the Design Studio people from 500 miles away throw it on a page, and everyone waits to see how it comes out in print.
     
    Fran Curci and Liut like this.
  8. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    Waits with baited or bated breath?
     
  9. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    There are fewer editors, period.

    A lot of them aren't any good, either. The grammatical shit is bad enough. Editors apparently no longer challenge shitty theses, either. I must read 10-15 columns a week where my primary reaction is "Jesus, calm the fuck down with your rhetoric."
     
    Liut likes this.
  10. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I'm starting to grudgingly make peace with typos. If I didn't, I'd have to give up reading virtually everything. I can't imagine the workloads that copy editors have now (well, the few copy editors that are left). You can tell because typos are often closer to the ends of stories -- almost as if someone takes a look at the top half to make sure there's nothing terrible, then crosses their fingers for the rest and moves on to something else.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page