Show of hands: is your work blog edited post-by-post?

The newspaper-based blogs you're either involved with or know about intimately - are each of their posts read by an editor before they're put up live on the organization's website?

I've heard arguments for why the answer should be yes or no but if you've got opinions to share, go ahead. Thanks for your time.

 

I run it through spell-check and give it a once- or twice-over, but unless I have a posting issue, no one else sees it before it goes up.

 

Whoever makes the argument for "no" is doing it wrong.

 

True story. Our SE has no idea what's in the blogs.

 

Blanket statements, such as saying it is always wrong for reporters to directly post, are silly, unless you are devoid of competition. And even if you are devoid of competition, you're still competing with potential readers not looking at all -- so there's always competition.

If the editing process is going to be nearly instantaneous, then the more set of eyes on something the better.

But what can happen is posts await editing for a while and there can be a lengthy delay in getting things posted -- something your competition may not have.

If you trust the writer, the best system -- to me -- is to have the writer post directly to the blog, then alert the editor that something has been posted, so that it can be back-read as quickly as possible.

That puts a major responsibility on the writer in terms of avoiding typos, etc., as well as demonstrating that he/she does not make questionable content decisions that could put the newspaper at risk. Writers posting directly should not be a policy for new writers, but it should be a policy strongly considered for reporters you trust.

 

Ours only knows the blog exists because we include refers to it in the print edition. Given some preseason interactions with him, I'm not sure he knows what's in the local content in our print edition either.

 

Depends on the situation. I broke a story on a murder indictment: got my info, wrote it up, and couldn't get an editor to proof it in two minutes because they were heading to a lunch meeting with the ad department. You know, priorities. I had to post it without anyone looking at it, even though our policy was to have at least one person look at it.

 

You're not arguing that "blog posts shouldn't be edited post-by-post." You're arguing that they can't be edited post-by-post, because there often isn't enough time.

To that I say, "make time." A year from now, no one will remember if your competitor had any particular bit of news 5 minutes before you did. They will, however, remember you forever as the one who botched it if you post without an edit and there's something wrong.

 

I have a prep sports blog, and I usually post after midnight. So, no, it doesn't get edited before it goes on-line.

 

Nope, not here.

I think they should be.

The boss does read them all once they are up.