Universal Desk

Pros: They inspire the wise to find a way out of newspapers.

Cons: They lead to those who remain constantly complaining about their work.

 

Agree completely with last statement...too many fall back on the "this is the way we have always done it'' model. That model doesn't work any longer

 

Also strongly agree. Those who are willing to take on s--- jobs have a better chance of survival, especially in today's environment. Quite a few modestly talented people I've worked with over the years have survived cost cuts and layoffs and remain employed at least in part because they've always been willing to do just about anything and have made themselves valuable.

 

Editing for every section of the paper is not difficult if you read the whole paper. Which you do if you want to be an informed adult.

My standard response to those who claimed not to be interested in sports is that they should pick any sports person they wish and ask if he or she is interested in every sport we cover.

My first real editing mentor told us not to be "sports retards" by being unfamiliar with the rest of the paper. This was three decades ago in a boomtown, so it had nothing to do with universal desks or enhancing our resumes. He was just really pissed when someone -- thank God not me, but at that point in my career it could have been -- misused a word common to the business section but not usually found in the sports section. (And for the life of me, I can't recall the word, but I do remember us being accused, en masse, as being qualified for the Special Olympics.)

I mean, shit, editing an opera review or a soccer roundup? Coin flip, please. Figure skating or school board? Gimme a coffee. Preps roundup or latest unemployment figures? Depressing either way.

OTOH, Super Bowl gamer or presidential election main? Dead celeb or World Series? Gruesome homicide or NBA Finals? Sex scandal or A-Rod? You can have all of them if you show you can handle it.

 

I worked on a universal desk starting out, and I was pretty informed, and it's something you pick up as you go, like anything else in this business. My overall news judgment got a lot better from doing national wire stuff starting out. But I really have no interest in editing local news or business stories. If I had to do it, I would, but I would certainly be less interested in showing up. And I know it doesn't matter much in these times, but it makes for a better product when people are editing stories they know a little something about. I'm in sports and don't follow the NBA or NHL all that closely, but I can still put together roundups and write headlines without fucking it up.

As for the central editing desk, that is pretty similar as far as the work itself goes. But the communication is atrocious. I mean, most places I've been, the communication in the building isn't that great, so imagine your editors being 350 miles away. And the CEC I was on, one paper had major sports, one ran almost exclusively college hoops in season, and the other covered tons of preps, minor-league baseball and the like. Terrible, but was also a pretty good learning experience.

 

Pro: frees up an extra person to do more writing, that is unless they laid that person off, which in most cases they do. Still, no design/desk work so it frees more time up for the remaining staff who would occasionally pitch in before.

Con: You have absolutely no control of the look and design of your section. Headlines, photo sizes, story placement, stories being cut in horrible spots. And you can forget modular layouts. It's all about busting heads and being proud of it these days.