Mistakes

[DyePack]

OK, shotglass, mistakes happen. I'm not disputing that.

What I am saying is that there's a problem when the process is set up in a way that mistakes get through the alleged lines of defense. For one thing, I think the concept of catching mistakes on a negative is a bad one. That gives people the impression they don't have to do a good job on the original proof because someone else will see the mistake. Finding an error on a negative or by scanning the backward image of a page at the printing computer is a dicey proposition at best.

I also think it's a big problem that newspapers don't use proofs printed at 100 percent. Type reduced to 70-75 percent is going to be far harder to read. How in hell is someone going to catch a mistake when they can't even read the stuff? As my vision got worse, I had to settle for skimming because there was no way I was going to get through a night of squinting at 7-point type.

Also, you mention online gaming. People are going to **** off at work; it's inevitable. But the people who have patterns of missing the same things over and over seem to get a free pass too often, and that's just wrong.

 

[shotglass]

Agreed.

 

[Stupid]

I also think it's a big problem that newspapers don't use proofs printed at 100 percent. Type reduced to 70-75 percent is going to be far harder to read. How in hell is someone going to catch a mistake when they can't even read the stuff? As my vision got worse, I had to settle for skimming because there was no way I was going to get through a night of squinting at 7-point type.

That probably explains why, when we have a typo, it fairly leaps off the page of the paper as opposed to hiding from one's eyes on a proof.

 

[buckweaver]

Which, I guess, brings us back to another point: how do you solve this problem? How do you make it a higher priority? I think Dye's right -- it is widespread. But shot's right too -- if you've got three people on the desk, all of whom have 2-3 pages left at 10 p.m., reading their own stories, proofing their own pages, because everyone else is still working on *their* pages ... what's a realistic solution?

The last two papers I've been at, we've tried to implement a "cheat sheet" for proofing sports pages. Check off each box as you check the page for the following (check for hed mispellings first, check for hed factual errors, check for cutline mispellings, check the date/page number on the folio, etc.) ... That's all fine and well for metro and lifestyles, but it's not very realistic if you want to make deadline, esp. in sports (with so much late copy coming in.) So the cheat sheets just don't last very long.

Getting more sets of eyes on each page is also a viable solution -- but obviously, that's not completely under our control. If you're understaffed, you're understaffed. You deal with it, you get the paper out, and you do the best you can.

Pushing deadlines back will never happen is another possibility. Also, it'll never happen.

***

If it's just a mentality thing -- that deskies don't care much about copy-editing -- well, perhaps we just have to start from the beginning. With each new hire, make that a point of emphasis when they come in. Start phasing out the established deskies who won't change their ways. Reward the deskies who will. It's got to be a culture change, and the only way you can do that is by ... well ... changing it.

Crack the whip, and it doesn't matter who does it. The boss doesn't have to do it -- you can do it yourself. (People will get defensive, no doubt about that. Most people are resistant to change. But you can't worry about that.) You just gotta keep it a priority, keep demanding better results from yourself and from everyone on desk. Don't let things slip, no matter how shorthanded you are or what the situation is. Mistakes will get through -- they'll always get through -- but they'll be fewer and farther between, and they won't be nearly as costly (for the most part). Demand excellence, expect it, and you just might get it.

 

[wickedwritah]

I understand sports wanting control over its pages, but, ****, us news copy editors don't bite. I'd be more than glad to glance over a page.

Of course, I'm a semi-abnormality, a guy who moved from sports writing to news copy editing. Still, we'd be more than willing to help, if asked.

 

[sportschick]

I understand sports wanting control over its pages, but, ****, us news copy editors don't bite. I'd be more than glad to glance over a page.

Of course, I'm a semi-abnormality, a guy who moved from sports writing to news copy editing. Still, we'd be more than willing to help, if asked.

Our news copy editors are normally gone almost an hour before our deadlines. They're more than willing to help. In fact several of them are ex-sports folks, but they're just not there when our pages are wrapping up.

It's just almost like a perfect storm. We've been discussing going to a universal desk, but I just don't know if that'll help solve the problem.

And you're not abnormal. I went from sports writing to news copy editing and then back to sports copy editing. It happens.

 

[Cosmo]

How about when dumb **** photogs don't know how to ID the people in their photos?

I cover a golf tournament, tell the photog who is worth shooting. She comes back with a photo. There are three people in the group. THREE PEOPLE. And she manages to mis-identify the ****ing golfer. So we have this big-ass photo on the page today with the photo identifying this player as the two-time champion of the tournament, when in fact it is one of his playing partners.

I was irate when I saw it. ****ing irate. Ruins the entire story and makes me look bad. I never saw a copy of the photo because I wasn't in the office late enough to see it put on the page.

Photogs ... you're photo-JOURNALISTS. Try getting the information right every once in a while.

 

[Derek_W]

I was irate when I saw it. ****ing irate. Ruins the entire story and makes me look bad. I never saw a copy of the photo because I wasn't in the office late enough to see it put on the page.

This has happened to me as well. Wrote up a state tournament basketball gamer one time, and the photographer misidentified a player in the photo. The next day we get an email from someone who thinks I was responsible for the mistake, even though I'm not the photographer and the photo credit of the photographer is listed under the picture. At least the guy was nice about it though, and my editor replied explaining I wasn't the one at fault.

Still, I don't understand why people think mistakes in cutlines, etc. are the fault of the writer who writes the story.

 

[shotglass]

Same reason they think the writer is responsible for the headline on his story. They're clueless about what we do.

 

[FileNotFound]

Another problem is that as soon as a copy editor distinguishes himself/herself, particularly on an understaffed desk, that person is generally rewarded by getting more work -- more stories, more proofs, more stuff getting routed to that person. As that person gets more work, his or her work suffers overall. It's the curse of competence.

 

[Desk_dude]

Another problem is that as soon as a copy editor distinguishes himself/herself, particularly on an understaffed desk, that person is generally rewarded by getting more work -- more stories, more proofs, more stuff getting routed to that person. As that person gets more work, his or her work suffers overall. It's the curse of competence.

This is so true. That person also gets the tougher stories. And has more "corrections" put into their personal file.

 

[shotglass]

And makes sure their deskmates know about it. You forgot that part.

 

[PaperDoll]

I think most of the problem with the copy editing vs. design thing is that we're expected to do both. I know that I get pages to proof late at the same time I'm trying to finish off scoreboard and baseball. I don't have time to do a good job of proofing the front and other pages and finish up my own pages.

I'm a reporter who copy edits when necessary (though I don't design. I don't know Quark well enough!)  I'm shocked that your reporters are turning in stories with so many errors (but less so than when I was a fact-checker at a major weekly magazine.)  Part of my job is to get the facts right before I file, and I ought to have a pretty darn good grasp of grammar as well. 

But I guess I have high standards.     And an understaffed desk which often doesn't (seem to) read anything.

 

[buckweaver]

I think most of the problem with the copy editing vs. design thing is that we're expected to do both. I know that I get pages to proof late at the same time I'm trying to finish off scoreboard and baseball. I don't have time to do a good job of proofing the front and other pages and finish up my own pages.

I'm a reporter who copy edits when necessary (though I don't design. I don't know Quark well enough!) I'm shocked that your reporters are turning in stories with so many errors (but less so than when I was a fact-checker at a major weekly magazine.) Part of my job is to get the facts right before I file, and I ought to have a pretty darn good grasp of grammar as well.

But I guess I have high standards. And an understaffed desk which often doesn't (seem to) read anything.

Good point. When I wrote, I thought that was the most important thing I could do: fact-check/spell-check/grammar-check before turning it in. I don't know, maybe some writers feel like others will or should catch their mistakes? But I was obsessive about my stories -- if it had my name on it, I was going to be damn sure I had complete control over its accuracy ... or lack thereof. I didn't trust anybody -- still don't trust anybody -- to do a better job than myself when it comes to editing my own work. But then, I'm self-critical to the extreme. There's ALWAYS something I could do better.

I know -- for a fact! -- that I made mistakes, some of them big ones, but I also know that I didn't turn in anything without at least checking in first. Sometimes an error gets past you; it happens. But to turn in a story with multiple spelling/grammar errors ... I just don't get why anyone would do that. It's your name on it -- have some pride in what you do, you know?

 

[shotglass]

A lot of times, buck, the grammar/usage error isn't a lack-of-pride sort of thing. It's a hole in the writer's education.

Many writers, there is some specific thing that they just don't get. You'd be stunned by how many can't nail down "its" and "it's".

"They" and "it" gets some people. "Their" and "they're" ... an interns' favorite. Using "a couple hits" rather than "a couple of hits" is another. Or "said Jones" rather than "Jones said".

And I'm convinced somebody in the mid-'80s became determined to remove commas from their students' copy. Because not nearly enough of them are used now. Why would "Hey Jim" ever be acceptable? But it's the way a good number of writers do it.

It's something they learned the wrong way and never re-learned. Of course, a good copy editor should never miss one of those.

 

[SF_Express]

Why would "Hey Jim" ever be acceptable? But it's the way a good number of writers do it.

Not to put too fine a point in this general discussion, and it's not really about a "mistake," but my thinking on the necessity of a comma between "Hey" and "Jim" has changed a bit over the years.

To me, it's a "sound" issue. And I'm not sure there's always a pause called for there.

I don't know what the grammar gods would say, but that's my take these days.

 

[shotglass]

Hey ... Jim.

Not HeyJim.

Comma.

Stop confusing the masses, SF.

 

[SF_Express]

Hey ... Jim.

Not HeyJim.

Comma.

Stop confusing the masses, SF.

Hey Shottie, I'm still not so sure.

I didn't pause there.

 

[buckweaver]

A lot of times, buck, the grammar/usage error isn't a lack-of-pride sort of thing. It's a hole in the writer's education.

Many writers, there is some specific thing that they just don't get. You'd be stunned by how many can't nail down "its" and "it's".

"They" and "it" gets some people. "Their" and "they're" ... an interns' favorite. Using "a couple hits" rather than "a couple of hits" is another. Or "said Jones" rather than "Jones said".

It's something they learned the wrong way and never re-learned. Of course, a good copy editor should never miss one of those.

Fair enough, shot, but that brings up another point. If, in theory, copy editors are catching these and changing these regularly -- shouldn't a writer notice these changes in how he turns his copy in and how his copy appears in the paper? God, I noticed every comma splice, every changed word, every tiny edit that was added into my story. And if something was changed, I wanted to know why. Mostly, it was because I was doing something wrong. But I'd like to think that those mistakes stopped happening so much. Again, I'm a little OCD about my work.

Now, as a copy editor, I don't mind telling a writer about regular errors that they make in style or grammar at times. But I'm not going to speak up about every little thing, because nobody likes that. On the other hand, I don't think the desk should have to keep changing seemingly minor errors because of a "hole in their education." ... "Their/they're/there" or "it's/its" or "more than/less than" or time/date/place ... these are things you need to learn as a writer, things that will apply anywhere you'll ever work as a writer. These are basic technical tools of the job, right? And sure, you can overlook it with some people if they consistently show brilliance in other aspects. But most of us aren't that brilliant -- I'm certainly not -- so if you don't get the basics right, then what's the point? Or is that just me?

 

[shotglass]

Honestly, buck, I don't have an answer for that.

I know that the people who I correct on a regular basis ... the same stuff continues to happen. Which would lead me to conclude that they believe they're right and I'm wrong.