Buzzmachine: Do we need editors any more?

08/19/2008

6 Comments

 

Jeff Jarvis' column for The Guardian this week points to the evolution of the editor. He notes that the editor needs to become a curator --- a provider of links and a filler of gaps --- more so that the spell-checking, grammar-correcting source.
Given community editing in wikis and blogs, is that displacing the role of the traditional editor? Is the community usurping the assignment and line-editing role?
A related blog today (The Diary of a Wordsmith) at The Editors' Weblog points to the value of the so-called sub editor in the legal sphere, in directing an operation, and in raising the standard of the work.

 


Comments

Colin
08/19/2008 16:55

If you get rid of Editors who will make the snide know it all comments on the end of readers letter who point out fact not to the editors liking?

Also who would be there to mangle decently written articles by a reporter who has bothered to try to understand the subject, whereas the editor removes important statements and fact to skew the article as they see fit?

bob
08/19/2008 20:11

bang on colin

Kirk LaPointe link
08/20/2008 00:58

Um, what do you really think, Colin?

Jules Avon
08/20/2008 03:42

Not to pick at arcane nits, but even in this short article there is a typo that might have been picked up by any entry-level copy editor: "more so that" should have read "more so than". I run across dozens of such slips every day, slips that are routinely overlooked by useless spell-check programs and which often confound readers or force them to import their own meaning, and I lament the decline of editing.

Dave Patterson link
08/20/2008 09:21

This is Orwellian, the writer doesn't even appear to understand what a real editor is or does. Newspapers are failing because they have not had editors or publishers with any serious integrity for quite awhile. (journalists too, but journalists don't make decisions, they do what they are told or look for another job - which is one reason there aren't many 'real' journalists running around out there - where's the Cdn Pilger looking under important rocks these days? Where's the paper or tv that would publish him here?). The job of a 'real' editor, when we had them, was to make sure the community the paper served got a balanced selection of news and commentary - reading assigned stories, they would of course be the last line of defence to catch typos or grammatical problems or brain farts or whatever, but that was not the main job. For quite a few years now, we have had a media whose function was not presenting a balanced view, but rather creating a Canadian narrative, through presenting a very selective view of news and commentary for the readers, and trying to shape what the 'Canadian citizen' thought, rather than giving them information to decide in a democratic way what they wanted to do with their country. I suspect this post won't go far, so I won't either, but would be happy to talk more if anyone was interested. The ideas are explicated further at They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html , and Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html .

Wade
08/20/2008 14:40

As a writer, i have come to know and appreciate the value of a good copy editor. They catch the mistakes that a spelling or grammar check doesn't.

Nowhere is this more evident than in many blogs, wherein often valid points are lost to misused words, repetition of words or transpositions that make the statements look less credible.

(Notice I said a "good" copy editor, though. A bad editor can completely screw up a piece through simple poor decision making, or senseless omissions and rewrites.)

This is why more attention should be paid to getting and keeping the good ones, whose value in upholding a standard of quality in the product is inestimable.

I agree with the statements above, in that by downgrading vital elements (like editors) in favor of more salespeople and advertising types; the downward spiral of newspapers is accelerated.

This type of short-term thinking is entrenched in corporate culture throughout North America; and eventually the parasites always kill the host.

It is the very type of thing that will be written about in the better publications, that will survive because they recognize the value of quality; and the stories will all be quite compelling, because they have been written by someone working with a good editor.

The stories will be read with a dewey grey eye by the people who thought that Wikipedia and Google would let them giggle and golf their way through the publishing business.

best,

Wade


Comments are closed.
DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058