Week 11 Abstracts

Who Would Want to Be a Copy Editor?  

This article says copy editors as a profession are treated and perceived as the bottom of the food chain in the news room.  Because they are not respected in the real world, the author says, journalism professors often do not train their students for copy editing or espouse its importance. Auman says newsrooms would benefit from a restructuring that would increase the communication between reporters and copy editors, change the hours everyone works so the copy desk can begin earlier and create a panel of representatives to identify ways the copy desk’s job benefits readers. Then, she says, journalism schools would be more likely to suggest the job to their students.

 

As someone who has interned on the copy desk of a large newspaper and who has worked as a reporter, I can agree with Auman’s point that the copy editor is basically at the whim of the reporter. The editor can only do her job when the story is finished and must return to work when the reporter submits changes to the original. Also, the hours are not traditional: Copy editors began arriving around 3 p.m. and left around midnight each day. However, I don’t know if changing everyone’s hours is necessary or feasible. For example, reporters must do most of their work on workdays between normal business hours because that’s when most sources are available. Therefore, most interviews must be conducted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Then, the writer must finish her story. I don’t see how the time table for this could be dramatically shifted. Also, because newspapers want to have the most up-to-date news from wire services, someone must be in the news room until the last page is sent to the press around midnight. It only makes sense.

 

I do agree with Auman, however, that it would benefit everyone in the newsroom to have more of a dialogue between reporters and copy editors. Maybe an organized lunch would help everyone get to know each other and break down the physical barriers between the two groups.

 Goodbye Copy Desk, Hello Trouble?  

This article from 1997 brought to my attention the fact that some newsrooms were experimenting with integrating copy editing into other newsroom areas rather than retaining a separate copy desk. Proponents for this new setup said it increased overall newsroom efficiency, built stronger relationships between reporters and copy editors and in many cases gave copyeditors higher job satisfaction and better hours.

 

The article raised several questions about potential downsides to this drastic reorganization. One was “Who will serve as mentors for copy editors?” It went on to say that historically, the slot editor served as a mentor for younger copy editors and even reporters. I think there probably won’t be a void if the editors in new positions mentor their successors. If there were no more slot editor position, then no one would need to know how to do that job anymore. Instead, new editors would learn the new positions a reorganization would create. The jobs would just be more specialized.

 

Another question was something like this: “If the institution of a copy desk disappears, will there be a lack of institutional support for the job?” I think this is a quite valid concern because with less physical solidarity between editors, it will be easier for the newsroom to place more importance on other functions, such as reporting. The article says with the experimental reorgs at some papers, the result has arguably been more mistakes in the final product

 

I think a reorganization/ restructuring/ downsizing of this kind would require a fairly large paper with distinct departments. That way, the copyeditor can develop specialized knowledge and working relationships with certain reporters. But for a midsize paper with less clear divisions between departments, I think the copy desk should remain a separate entity in order to support each department equally.

 Editing the Project or Series 

This article appealed to me because we are required to edit a project in our advanced editing class. I am also writing stories as part of a series for a midsize newspaper, so I thought it would be helpful to get the editor’s perspective.

 

I was somewhat surprised at the main point: A copy editor should be involved with the creation of a series from the first planning meeting through publication. I must say that for the series I am working on, no copy editors have been involved in planning. We have four reporters and one senior assigning editor. But the idea appeals to me if for no other reason than to have another person helping the series be the best it can be. I especially liked the suggestions for the copy editor to do some independent research on the topic, to help come up with headlines (which can guide the theme of the entire package), and to assist with finding graphics.

 

I wonder if many copy editors would be eager to participate in a series. At the midsize paper where I work, I don’t know if one would be easily assigned to a single project like this. It would require him or her to come in for meetings well before her normal hours, for one thing. It’s interesting to consider whether the benefit to the series would be worth the resources and time a copy editor would invest on top of the reporters’ existing work.