The cardboard is hardly bare

Fixed -- by a former copy editor who still edits stories daily.

 

Cute.

And despite the original poster's protestations that he was "pro-copy editor" (as if any sensible reporter can be anti-copy editor), his post read (upper-case for emphasis):

"To compensate, WE writers are REQUIRED to "cq" all names, stats and any out-of-the-ordinary facts in our copy. In other words, they are putting MORE OF THE ONUS on US writers to NOT MAKE SLOPPY MISTAKES."

A firefighter I know had a similar complaint when sprinkler systems weren't mandated by law:

"To compensate, WE firefighters are REQUIRED to douse ANY FLAME we might come across, no matter how small. In other words, they are putting MORE OF THE ONUS on US firefighters to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DYING IN FIRES."

as ludicrous as the original line of thinking

 

That's all fine. I think you both agree here. Instead of reaming him for what appears to be an insignificant point in his post, how about addressing his overall point:

It is a bad idea to have fewer eyes on a story.

Yes, the reporter should be double-checking things. Yes, the reporter should get things right.

But fewer copy editors = more mistakes in print, 100 percent of the time.

Here's something else: At my place, not only have they reduced copy editors, they've moved deadlines -- which were already tight to begin with -- up 30 minutes. So now, I'm having to file game stories without even reading them, much less proofreading them.

And there's one less set of eyes on them on the other end, too. I'm just waiting for the day something stupid gets in the paper. Because it's going to happen.

 

I do agree with the larger issue. Absolutely.

But I guess I was offended by the suggestion that the writer was somehow absolved of responsibility for accuracy if there were three or four editors to go over a story

When I started, there were compositors who physically laid out the page.

the computer age made them irrelevant and now most copy editors not only edit the words, but make up the page as well (and in many places design it)

That, to me, is a much more significant "onus" than being expected to report accurately.

 

EE94,
In equal standing as my most severe professional annoyances are writers complaining about their wonderful prose getting hacked and copy editors getting on their crosses.

The original post was about how having less copy editors creates more errors, and how that affects his job as a writer. It wasn't well-worded. That's no reason to label him clueless.

Same side here.

 

I guess there weren't four copy-editors available to save him

Look, I've worked both sides as well.

Any error that appeared in print under my byline I accepted as my responsibility.

Any error that appeared in a story I edited I accepted as my responsibility.

My point is that he feels accuracy is a burden he shouldn't have to accept completely. Just runs counter to my philosophy.

 

Anyhow, back to the title of the thread: I'm just glad Emmitt Smith found work somewhere.

 

Wow. Some of you guys are unreal.

The point of my original post was this: My paper is cutting staff, like all papers nowadays. The bosses have come to the conclusion that it's OK for fewer copyeditors to read stories because the writers will be told they must do a better job of checking their own facts. I think it's a good idea for writers to check their facts and not send in sloppy copy. I wrote in my original post that I was 100 percent behind the idea of making writers more accountable for their copy, but that I didn't like the idea of the new "cq" policy being used as justification for firing copyeditors and having fewer eyes read stories.

If I did not word it that way, my bad. But I have to say, some of the responses on this board, especially EE94's, just feed into the writers' view of copyeditors as wannabe writers with a chip on their shoulders.

 

Out here in Podunk, we get two reads if we're lucky.

And we consider it cause for celebration when a copy editor "saves" us by correcting a major mistake.

The reporter MUST get it right. And that's exactly how it should be.

I'm actually astounded to find out that reporters at larger dailies weren't required to CQ everything in a story. I'd get my ass handed to me if I didn't.

 

Its this type of thinking that merely demonstrates how much you have to learn.

First, let's get away from the romantic notion that you're a "writer." If you work in a newsroom you're a reporter, and it implies all the elements of accuracy and the responsibility thereof that I've been preaching. Your priority should be information - not a pretty sentence that merely contains adjectives or worse, superlatives.
If you can combine both, you'll be a star. But if you agonize over the writing and consider the accuracy of your information "a good idea", then I'd prefer a hound dog instead.

The best reporter I ever knew couldn't "write" a lick, but the copy-editors smoothed out the rough parts. He's recognized as one of the best in his field not for his metaphors, but because he digs up information no one else gets.

And every off-season, he would organize and pay for a booze-up at the local for anyone who worked on his copy the previous year - including proofreaders when we had them - because he appreciated what that job was, not because he regarded them as "writer wannabes"

You should learn to respect more the efforts of everyone who produces a paper on a daily basis.