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!

The cardboard is hardly bare

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by copygoldleader, Apr 1, 2009.

  1. copygoldleader

    copygoldleader New Member

    As we all know, there are more and more errors appearing due to cuts, but I haven’t seen such a phrase since “trio of thievery.”


    “Calipari has a reputation as one of the nation's best recruiters, and it's possible some of his latest recruits will follow him to Lexington. Still, the cardboard is hardly bare at Kentucky.”

    As I was typing this, it has since been changed to cupboard.

    Also, it appears he means to say “not” instead of “now” in this quote (I haven’t heard the audio):

    "I told Dr. Todd and Mitch, if you want something to happen in a year, do not hire me," Calipari said. "That's now how I do things."
  2. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    I posted this earlier on the Gillispie fired thread. Cracked me up.
  3. hankschu

    hankschu Member

    Interesting goings-on at my paper.

    We used to have our stories edited by two rim guys with a quick read from the slot. Now we have gone to what the bosses are calling a "two-touch" editing system. One rim guy reads it and then gets the quick check by the slot.

    To compensate, we writers are required to "cq" all names, stats and any out-of-ordinary facts in our copy (except for real late deadline stuff). In other words, they are putting more of the onus on us writers to not make sloppy mistakes.

    While I'm 100 percent behind the idea of making writers more accountable for their mistakes, I still wonder if removing one copyeditor from the loop (to save money, obviously) will lead to more "bare cardboards."
  4. Barsuk

    Barsuk Active Member

    Not to mention fewer rim jobs.
  5. mike311gd

    mike311gd Active Member

    No one needs that.
  6. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    This economy is starting to blow.
  7. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    The juxtaposition of the words "rim," "slot" and "onus" in the same post might lead to giggling.
  8. if you're 14 maybe
  9. EE94

    EE94 Guest

    This has to be the most clueless post I've ever read on this board
    I hardly think its out of line to expect reporters to verify the information they provide to editors.
    What are editors to you? Human spell checks? there to do your "lazy" work like checking "out of the ordinary" facts?
  10. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Even in better-staffed times, I had mixed feelings about cross-reads by the rim. On the one hand, the more eyes the better, sure. On the other hand, there is less accountability and on some staffs there would be people who would do the minimum because they knew someone else would pick up the slack on the next read. Also, I would rather have a rim editor do a great job reading 15 files than a mediocre job reading 30. Slotting 40-60 files per night is all about making choices on which files you're going to invest time in, and there are several factors involved in the choice: degree of difficulty in subject matter, skills of the writer and rim editor, amount of reader interest in the story, what time of night it is. So if you are blowing through some files in the slot, you don't want the rim blowing through them as well. You want each rimmer to have a manageable workload so they give you quality more than quantity.
  11. mediaguy

    mediaguy Well-Known Member

    I can hear the writer now: "I spellchecked it before I filed!"
  12. HorseWhipped

    HorseWhipped Guest

    Hell, I like them reporters.
    They can come over to my house and fuck my sister. :eek:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page