The lowly copy editor

It's not so much a "scaled down" issue as it is when the stories arrive. Our assigning editors can often be counted on to give a first read to a story . . . as long as it's there before 5 p.m. In other words, copy editors/slot are pretty much on their own for about 90 percent of the section.

 

Page designers get chicks; copy editors don't.

 

Assigning editors typically work day shift. Oftentimes they are communicating with the desk even after they have left for the day, but that 9 p.m. Duke-North Carolina game story that will be filed at 11:30? No way they get a look at that until they see it in the paper next morning.

 

So Romenesko linked to this piece, which prompted someone to write in and share her experience of being a copy editor.

Reading this made me want to punch her.

http://jimromenesko.com/2012/02/16/frustrations-of-a-copy-editor/

 

my god.

 

I couldn't even finish it. Hey, maybe if your shit keeps coming back "peppered with red ink," take a look in the mirror, mm'kay?

That read like Bill Simmons bitching because the Herald wouldn't let him file a 65-inch column three hours after deadline.

 

This. I'm in the midst of a transition from reporter/sports editor to copy editor, and it took a while at first to adjust. It's kind of like a culture shock. But it's pretty amazing to see the desk click. So systematic. So smart. So thorough. And if people just knew how poorly written some of the stories we get are ... it's pretty incredible.

 

Also only made it halfway. Uh ... American? Swiss? Cheddar? What kind of cheese does she want with that whine?

 

There are too many people who would love to return to or get their start in this industry for us to have time for spoiled little aggrandizing, jaded pieces of shit like that.

 

Good posts on this thread, Versatile. Thanks.

 

I was discussing copy editing with a younger journalist recently, suggesting it's a good way to break into somewhere you wouldn't be hired as a writer. He said he didn't like the idea of "accuracy, grammar and style," copy editing's three tenets. I look at it with a slightly different twist: Instead of "accuracy, grammar and style," I prefer "correctness, clarity and consistency" as the copy editor's charge.

Correctness because we're not just looking to make sure your facts are right, we're looking to make sure the story is represented correctly in all ways. This means we should be, when time permits, looking for gaps and working to balance things. It means if you say Mitt Romney is against gay marriage, you should point out that he's from a state that legalized it while he was governor. If you say Mike Stanton strikes out too often, you should add that he doubled his walk total in 2011. Copy editors get a lot of credit as the last guards for accuracy, but we're also responsible for enforcing sourcing and fairness standards. That's a huge part of the job.

Clarity because grammar and style both hope to enforce it. It upsets me to hear someone griping about how we changed a comma to a semicolon or reorganized a list to match the sentence structure. The idea is to make the story as readable as possible and close windows for misinterpretation. Grammar and style are built to make that easier.

Consistency because the overriding goal of most items in a style book is consistency. Consistency creates clarity and fairness. This means that it's often a copy editor's job to point out, "Hey, we gave Robin Roberts a story spot on 1, but we're only giving Gary Carter the second item in notes?" Copy editors are, almost without exception, among those most familiar with the recent history of the sports section.

We enforce accuracy, grammar and style because it's the best way to enforce correctness, clarity and consistency.

 

If the young man does not like the idea of accuracy, grammar and style, what IS he championing?

The idea of incorrectness, garble and confusion?