One editor too many?

Not my point at all. But there's a level of intrusion at which somebody needs to reset the mechanism and be sure the reedited story is all square.

 

On the issue of editing errors into copy, I think copy editors don't take that seriously enough or take it to heart.

You are a writer sending a football game on a tight deadline and spell a guy's name wrong an feel awful about it.

A copy editor adds in that the San Diego Chargers won the Super Bowl last year off his memory and shrugs his shoulders and blames the writer for not putting in the correct Super Bowl winner in the first place. Plus, he was busy.

 

]

Oh, come on, Ace...In 15 years at several levels of journalistic quality, I haven't met a copy editor who didn't take editing in an error seriously. That's just a plain over-simplification.
Now, I won't debate the various levels of competence, insight and work ethic. Man, I've worked with some stinkers.

 

Mistakes happen at every level. Copy editors prevent far more than they make, though, and I've never known a copy ed worth his salt who didn't agonize over an error he or she introduced.

 

I was generalizing, obviously. But I can think of few instances where reporters didn't feel guilty and awful about errors they made.

Desk editors more often seem to be able to rationalize their mistakes pretty easily. "We were busy. The story was a piece of crap that I had to rewrite. We were on deadline." And shrug their mistakes off.

I just wish if they take that attitude, they would realize that writers are often busy and on deadline when they make mistakes, too.

 

Isn't boots the rim man?

I'm the slot man.

 

Ace, I never would feel worse than if I introduced error into copy. And I can say the same for everyone on our five-person desk. You have to be a REAL stinker of a copy editor not to agonize over that. So where are you getting the generalization? Are you saying that you've worked with more stinkers than good copy editors?

And on the other side of the coin are the writers who consistently turn in non-deadline material 30-60 minutes before press time, when it could have been done the night before, or done by 6 p.m. that evening (talking about pregames and the like). That's asking for trouble.

 

I've worked with some stinkers, yes. The least you could do if you screw up like that is apologize to the reporter, and a lot don't even do that.

 

To me, if a story went through an "upper" editor and was moved along in that fashion, then a "lower" editor (if he knows this happened) should be having several conversations before doing what was done here.

There is a drawback, though: Sometimes when the "upper" editor goes through a story first, the secondary editor figures it must be fine, and then under-edits, pretty much rendering the second read useless.

But even if it's only one editor, any major changes to a writer's copy need to be run past the writer. If that's not rule No. 1 for copy editors, it needs to be very high up there.

 

That can happen. It's rare when a content editor fine-tunes. Most often they look for major problems and kick it back for a rewrite. They may cut a bit. When I was relatively new to working at places that had someone during the day looking at the stories, though, it was initially a source of confusion for me. The daytime ASE would initial the stories to indicate they had been through her. I was subbing for the night ASE and reading the stories before they went to the rim, and it appeared to me the stories she had initialed had been untouched. I thought, "This is how she wants the story? This glop is OK with her?" But I did ask and it was explained to me that she basically looks to see if the writer took the angle they wanted and if more reporting or rewriting was needed. It wasn't her job to fine-tune, she had other tasks in addition to being first eyes on that copy. Unfortunately, department heads do not always communicate the roles to the rim. Rim people sometimes get the incorrect impression not only that the story has blanket approval, but that the content editor is lazy -- when in fact it's not the content editor's job to have the story entirely publishing-ready.

 

Man, Frank. Being one of those guys at one of those smaller places, that is one job -- the daytime ASE -- I would never, ever want to have.

 

Being at a (relatively) bigger place but one which operates like a much smaller place (for good reason) ... I can say the same. No one could pay me enough to take a job like that.

Then again, must be nice sometimes to have all those resources.