One editor too many?

[spud]

I recently did a gamer that went through my SE, and when he got done he sent it to the copy desk as usual. But I guess we've got a new guy there, and he edited the hell out of my story. Completely reworked it. Not only that, but they fudged on a fact (actually added an incorrect fact into the lede), and it's pretty blatant. So now I'm the idiot who can't figure out what day the damn game was on.

Now I'm all for an SE pitching in what he knows and changing some things (and he didn't change all that much, so I know the story wasn't THAT terrible), but is two too much? And aren't they just supposed to cut it down to fit it in the allotted space? Or do you guys prefer having more people critique your work?

I am not happy. Do I have a right to be angry?

 

[Ace]

I recently did a gamer that went through my SE, and when he got done he sent it to the copy desk as usual. But I guess we've got a new guy there, and he edited the hell out of my story. Completely reworked it. Not only that, but they fudged on a fact (actually added an incorrect fact into the lede), and it's pretty blatant. So now I'm the idiot who can't figure out what day the damn game was on.

Now I'm all for an SE pitching in what he knows and changing some things (and he didn't change all that much, so I know the story wasn't THAT terrible), but is two too much? And aren't they just supposed to cut it down to fit it in the allotted space? Or do you guys prefer having more people critique your work?

I am not happy. Do I have a right to be angry?

One editor too many? Unpossible!

So, let me get this straight. You turned in a story (on deadline?) and the sports editor went through it (didn't just glance at it?) and sent it to the copy desk, where an editor gave it a complete overhaul and screwed up something.

Sounds pretty standard to me.

Seriously, if the sports editor had his way with the story, the copy editor shouldn't be making wholesale changes without talking to you or the editor.

I would go to the SE and talk to him about it.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Once the copy editor moves beyond simple fixes like commas and whatnot, the story has to go through further review.

Somebody has to edit the editor, after all.

 

[boots]

I would talk with your SE at once. No one is perfect but when errors are edited into a story, that is a problem that must be addressed.
As for what they did to your story, take a critical look and see if the changes ACTUALLY made your story better. In this business, everyone has an ego but remember, copy editors have to be paid to do something besides watching TV for six hours.

 

[spnited]

no editor should be making wholesale changes and lede changes -- including the SE -- without talking to the writer, even on deadline.

 

[boots]

no editor should be making wholesale changes and lede changes -- including the SE -- without talking to the writer, even on deadline.

I agree. If the story was reworked as bad as the writer says it was, if I was the SE and the story was that poorly written, the reporter and I would be having a nice chat about what is expected.

 

[shotglass]

I don't get this.

On one hand, you've got the DPs of the world decrying the lack of good copy editing and the concentration on newspaper design.

Now, you're saying that a copy editor should limit his editing to the bare grammar/punctuation essentials.

I'm not quite sure the 21st century desk man can win here.

 

[boots]

I don't get this.

On one hand, you've got the DPs of the world decrying the lack of good copy editing and the concentration on newspaper design.

Now, you're saying that a copy editor should limit his editing to the bare grammar/punctuation essentials.

I'm not quite sure the 21st century desk man can win here.

No he can't win. He can only hope to get even but a good desk man makes a story better. He doesn't edit when there is no need to edit.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

On a major-league desk, there's going to be more than two people editing a story. It's going to go through a content editor, a rim man, a slot man and then someone's going to read it on a page proof. If it's a project or takeout, the SE's probably going to read it, too. So "one editor too many" is kind of naive because if you move up to a large paper, you're almost never going to have one set of eyes on story. And, anyway, the number of people editing your work has nothing to do with the problem of one editor making a mess of things.

On most large sports desks, notes mode is used so that each layer of editing can see what's been done by previous layers. When slotting I have many times restored a writer's original writing if I thought the editing was overzealous and the copy editor couldn't justify the changes.

Of course major changes ought to be run past writers, time permitting. Usually when copy editors "forget" to do this, coincidentally it's a story written by someone who has a history of being an asshole when the desk calls. I wouldn't flinch at calling anyone about their story, but some people believe it's not worth the aggravation and try to duck it.

 

[imjustagirl2]

God, I wish our paper, which circulation-wise would be considered a 'major-league' paper I think, had that many editors on ANY night, not just on one story.

 

[MileHigh]

On a major-league desk, there's going to be more than two people editing a story. It's going to go through a content editor, a rim man, a slot man and then someone's going to read it on a page proof. If it's a project or takeout, the SE's probably going to read it, too. So "one editor too many" is kind of naive because if you move up to a large paper, you're almost never going to have one set of eyes on story. And, anyway, the number of people editing your work has nothing to do with the problem of one editor making a mess of things.

On most large sports desks, notes mode is used so that each layer of editing can see what's been done by previous layers. When slotting I have many times restored a writer's original writing if I thought the editing was overzealous and the copy editor couldn't justify the changes.

Of course major changes ought to be run past writers, time permitting. Usually when copy editors "forget" to do this, coincidentally it's a story written by someone who has a history of being an asshole when the desk calls. I wouldn't flinch at calling anyone about their story, but some people believe it's not worth the aggravation and try to duck it.

What he said. And we're "major league" and that is our process.

 

[accguy]

At my place, the guy in charge of the desk has a pretty simple rule for the folks on the desk and one that is appreciated by me. He says that if the desker thinks it's important enough to change the reporters lede, then it's also important enough for the desker to call said reporter.

Seems fair to me.

 

[HejiraHenry]

I don't get this.

On one hand, you've got the DPs of the world decrying the lack of good copy editing and the concentration on newspaper design.

Now, you're saying that a copy editor should limit his editing to the bare grammar/punctuation essentials.

I'm not quite sure the 21st century desk man can win here.

Not my point at all. But there's a level of intrusion at which somebody needs to reset the mechanism and be sure the reedited story is all square.

 

[Ace]

On the issue of editing errors into copy, I think copy editors don't take that seriously enough or take it to heart.

You are a writer sending a football game on a tight deadline and spell a guy's name wrong an feel awful about it.

A copy editor adds in that the San Diego Chargers won the Super Bowl last year off his memory and shrugs his shoulders and blames the writer for not putting in the correct Super Bowl winner in the first place. Plus, he was busy.

 

[fishwrapper]

]

On the issue of editing errors into copy, I think copy editors don't take that seriously enough or take it to heart.

Oh, come on, Ace...In 15 years at several levels of journalistic quality, I haven't met a copy editor who didn't take editing in an error seriously. That's just a plain over-simplification.
Now, I won't debate the various levels of competence, insight and work ethic. Man, I've worked with some stinkers.

 

[fromdawntodesk]

Mistakes happen at every level. Copy editors prevent far more than they make, though, and I've never known a copy ed worth his salt who didn't agonize over an error he or she introduced.

 

[Ace]

]

On the issue of editing errors into copy, I think copy editors don't take that seriously enough or take it to heart.

Oh, come on, Ace...In 15 years at several levels of journalistic quality, I haven't met a copy editor who didn't take editing in an error seriously. That's just a plain over-simplification.
Now, I won't debate the various levels of competence, insight and work ethic. Man, I've worked with some stinkers.

I was generalizing, obviously. But I can think of few instances where reporters didn't feel guilty and awful about errors they made.

Desk editors more often seem to be able to rationalize their mistakes pretty easily. "We were busy. The story was a piece of crap that I had to rewrite. We were on deadline." And shrug their mistakes off.

I just wish if they take that attitude, they would realize that writers are often busy and on deadline when they make mistakes, too.

 

[Football_Bat]

On a major-league desk, there's going to be more than two people editing a story. It's going to go through a content editor, a rim man, a slot man and then someone's going to read it on a page proof.

Isn't boots the rim man?

I'm the slot man.

 

[shotglass]

Ace, I never would feel worse than if I introduced error into copy. And I can say the same for everyone on our five-person desk. You have to be a REAL stinker of a copy editor not to agonize over that. So where are you getting the generalization? Are you saying that you've worked with more stinkers than good copy editors?

And on the other side of the coin are the writers who consistently turn in non-deadline material 30-60 minutes before press time, when it could have been done the night before, or done by 6 p.m. that evening (talking about pregames and the like). That's asking for trouble.

 

[Ace]

Ace, I never would feel worse than if I introduced error into copy. And I can say the same for everyone on our five-person desk. You have to be a REAL stinker of a copy editor not to agonize over that. So where are you getting the generalization? Are you saying that you've worked with more stinkers than good copy editors?

And on the other side of the coin are the writers who consistently turn in non-deadline material 30-60 minutes before press time, when it could have been done the night before, or done by 6 p.m. that evening (talking about pregames and the like). That's asking for trouble.

I've worked with some stinkers, yes. The least you could do if you screw up like that is apologize to the reporter, and a lot don't even do that.