Mistakes

OK, I do think DyePack makes a worthy point. If we're being asked to be Superman (which shotty rightly points out we are), then the design crowd can't simply ignore the editing portion. It's just not an option. Unfortunately, it's a non-option that's being exercised all to often.

 

It's a chain reaction. Everything gets fewer reads before it goes to press. Reporters are ordered to produce more copy in a shorter time, meaning the raw copy has more errors to begin with.
Copy editors have more stories to read in a shorter time, meaning more errors get through.
Designers are ordered to work on design as well as proofing, meaning more errors get through.
A lot of time, final proofing is done on the page, meaning more errors get through.
And Mr. Publisher looks for another layer of editorial staff he can lay off next month to boost the bottom line.

 

There's one link of this, though, where the people who are supposed to do a certain job are ignoring it. I've already mentioned what that link is, and it's by far the weakest one in the newsroom.

 

Ultimately, PUBLISHERS are responsible for everything -- every single thing -- that goes in the paper. Any mistakes that get through, they could have, and should have, hired enough, or competent enough, people to prevent them.

You want ultimate responsibility, there it is.

 

Good luck with that approach.

So far, this is exactly what I thought it would be: No one in any newsroom wants to take any responsibility for a rise in mistakes. It's just inevitable.

Then it's inevitable readers will diminish. If the people in newsrooms don't care about the quality of the product, then why should the readers?

 

Moving away from the fly-drawing horse corpse ...

How many times does stuff get read in your newsroom before it gets sent?

In our place, theoretically it's:
-- Story is read by a city editor (if it's a local news story)
-- Story is read by the copy editor before it gets on the page
-- Story is read by another copy editor on a proof
-- Story may be read again by original copy editor when changes are being made

Then, for the major stuff:
-- Heads, cuts and folios are read off the negs (unfortunately it's usually by one of the two people who either did the page or read the proof)
-- Person checking the paper as it rolls off the press (allegedly) checks the heads, cuts and folios

I think we have more of a luxury at our paper, though, than most on our level.

 

Just stoking the burning dead-horse corpse, but should we just get rid of designers altogether? I mean, lets just all go on-line and just cut out designers. Hell, then the designers can be full-time copy editors. Is that what we want?

By the by, I am a designer, and an editor when needed. I in no way want to stop designing. I don't have editor in the title of my position. There are two other editors here that make sure to read the stories and get everything right. I just slap the copy and pictures on the page and make things easy to read.

Just my two cents.

 

Have you done anything to attempt to affect change in your newsroom or newsrooms? What happens when you complain or try to talk to your superiors about this. I think you have some valid points ... do they just fall on deaf ears when you bring them up?

 

Sizzle, why are you sure he HAS a newsroom?

It's been the same chickenshit from him since Day One. He's got all the bitches and none of the answers. We're still waiting.

 

Yes, douchebag, just keep right on with that and thinking you're clever. Typical designer mentality.

 

Typically there are short-lived initiatives. They last a few weeks, then things go back to the way they were.

Usually the biggest fights are about cutlines, simply because there are many levels of blame.

The story editing problems are harder to resolve, simply because too many city editors have the dipshit attitude that things shouldn't be forced back "uphill" or they are too busy with "administration and scheduling" to do their editing jobs properly.

The designers not editing is a problem sort of like plaque. You can brush and scrape and floss, but somehow it's always there.

 

If they're just designers, let them design. If they're designers/copy editors, throw them out on their asses if they don't copy edit. What's the problem here that I'm not seeing? Management? People not knowing what their roles are? People not WANTING to know what their roles are?