What do editors look for when hiring editors?

This is the typical "us vs. them" debate.
"No, our job is tougher."
"No. Our parents whine at us."
"But, we..."

The best editors -- like humans -- are confident, competent dwellers conscious of the needs of others.

 

There were more straight shooters in the biz 20 years ago. Books like "When MBAs Rule The Newsroom" and James Squires' "Read All About It" illustrated the cultural shift in the '90s. Or, shall we say, the "modern work environment." Barf.

 

Don't forget the ability to go to an hour morning meeting, hour afternoon meeting and two-hour lunch, AND still finding time to play golf on Fridays and show up at the big events for the free food.

 

It wasn't passing the buck. It was sharing the reality.
There were some assignments I had to pass on that my staff just knew wasn't of my choosing. I wasn't about to bullshit them with some military mantra or Just do It.
What I would say was, "I understand why you think this is stupid, but I need you to do it and here's why.

I found the appreciated the candor.

 

I'm sure they did. Just pointing out that most manager training types would not approve.

 

Why I always liked Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan.
He tells his squad the assignment is bullshit, but it's about the greater good - If saving Ryan means we get to go home, then we do it.
(or soemthing like that)

 

EE, who in their right mind is going to put their heart into work that their boss says is bullshit before they even start? If you have neither the guts to tell your boss it's a bad idea nor the creativity to turn it into something of value that will challenge the people who have to do it, do everyone a favor and step down.

 

Yet I follow the same method with my staff. It is appreciated and makes the department a much more cohesive unit.

In fact, with certain edicts, UM has told me to go ahead and say, look, this is coming from above and we've gotta do it. That doesn't mean it gets blown off or gets done half-assed -- it's just fair to let yhour department know the whys sometimes.

 

Screw you. I have no problem expressing my opinions on the merits of a story.
But guess what, Frank, sometimes my boss says his boss (the publisher) wants it and so it will be done.
It's usually a bullshit story - not exactly page one - so I don't give a shit if it isn't Pulitzer worthy. The story gets done and that day's problem goes away.
I know I'm worth more to my staff than getting fired over some rinky-dink assignment, so I go along.

the problem with most journalists is they think there's some fucking nobility in being a self-righteous prick.

Like you

 

Frank is not self-righteous. Anything but.

There are assignments we've all done or assigned, knowing the genesis either murky or serving. You put your head down, do them and get on to what matters.
And, Frank, there was just as much -- if not more -- of it going on 20 years ago. Time fogs.

 

Creepy. Word for word, that post could have been a transcription of my last yearly evaluation.

 

A few of us made some general statements about the biz and you came on and told us to "grow up," as if we're unable to discern what increasing insecurity has done to the atmosphere in newsrooms. The very fact that you indicate disagreeing over some "rinky-dink assignment" could cost you your jobs says a heck of a lot about the attitude of the people you work for and why the business is struggling. Bad shit happens when people are afraid to speak their minds about what goes into the paper. If you want a perfect example, read that humongous piece The New York Times did after the Jayson Blair stuff. Nothing will improve when the message being sent is that agreement is the way to advance and disagreement means being cut out of the loop.