One editor too many?

Hmmm...interesting. I'm not seeing it...

If you're the orgination editor, you get to work with writers on story concepts, help direct coverage when news happens, do first reads (I'd do more than just read 'em and initial 'em, don't see why this can't be an important line-editing function), coaching, help put together concepts for packages ... sounds pretty good to me.

Seriously, Shottie, what's your aversion to this kind of job?

 

REALLY not for me, SF.

I abhor "glass-office" skull sessions with a passion. Would much rather have my hands on the process of actually getting the newspaper on the street.

 

If I introduce error, I feel awful. At my place, we are encouraged to speak up if we see buried ledes and misorganization, and are given great leeway as far as tightening and changing words that are used the wrong way, stuff like that. If we're gonna move stuff around, etc., of course we talk to the reporter. But we're not made to feel like we're to walk on eggshells, either. After all, the product is ultimately the newspaper's, and the readers', so whatever has to be done to make it the most factual, most readable story is the goal, not for a mass singing of Kumbaya at the end of the night.

(And no johnson reference...whew!)

 

Well, good on ya then...

 

If you read this thread from the beginning, and I may be wrong, it appears that there were problems the way the story was written. If I am an SE and a guy turns in something crappy, we'd talk about it.