An article in E&P a while back spoke of the stupid concept of an "electronic fence." The article focused on how copy editors face varying degrees of latitude in what they can do to stories.<p>I thought of this when I read my old colleague Pete Zicari's post about the longest lede people were "not allowed" to change.<p>Pete and I worked together (well, for "competing" papers in the same building) at an operation that gradually devalued copy editors to the point where they eventually phased them out, if what I hear about the place is true. (I was not a copy editor while there).<p>When I left that place I went to Milwaukee, where you were not allowed to change a syllable without conferring with a city editor. What a stupid plan. Bad stuff went through like shit through a goose because the city editors would get backed up and we weren't "allowed" to change it. Letting bad stuff in was considered less of an offense than changing copy without "permission."<p>At my current paper, copy editors were actually called "copyreaders" until not too many years ago, and there was a rule similar to the one that afflicted Milwaukee. For better or worse, the paper has seen an alarming devolution of the city desk. Thus, the copy desk...led by someone who posts here and might not want to be identified...basically said "fuck this" and started actually editing copy. This has proceeded to the point where, when time, wholesale rewrites occur by a few intrepids on the copy desk without the city desk even getting a sniff.<p>And no one has said a word. The right-thinking city editors realize they are overwhelmed and appreciate the help. The wrongheaded ones don't read the paper anyway, so they don't know the difference. And we rarely hear a peep out of the reporters, most of whom realize that their copy usually comes out better when it's actually been worked on.<p>One notable exception: When I deleted the title of "former president" before Alexander Hamilton's name, the "writer" huffily asked me if I was certain Alex had never been president. <p>My point here: I like pushing boundaries and think they should be pushed. They hire us to be editors, and we should make every effort to be editors - even if it means breaking down that fence.

There was such a "rule" when I was in Albany, too, which was 16 years ago. I routinely ignored it. I was tolerated because I got the paper out on time with comparatively few errors.<p>At my current paper, copy editors are expected to consult with assigning editors and/or reporters when making substantive changes. The definition of "substantive" changes varies from editor to editor. Some consult on nearly every change they make. Others, and I am one of them, consult on matters of fact, significant "stylistic" changes and lead changes that shift emphasis.<p> My method probably is in technical violation of the "rule," but, frankly, I am willing to take occasional flak if I think I'll get one of those blank stares when I propose a change. We all know, but rarely admit, that the best reason not to "consult" is that the assigning editor or reporter might say "no." I see no point in hamstringing myself if it results in the job not being done as well as it should be. That view, which I rarely express explicitly, is not popular, but that's the price I choose to pay. Do I get called on it? Once in a while. Recently I made a change that I should have consulted on, and I turned out to be wrong. That's pretty rare.<p>I have been told a couple of times that a "stylistic" change "made the story worse." I can live with that criticism as long as I know it didn't, and usually I know better. It doesn't do any good to explain that you made a change because the original was "stupid," but that's the most common reason.<p>Hubris? I suppose, but it hardly comes as a surprise to those who know me. Most of the reporters I've discussed it with tell me that they can't even tell what I did to their copy, which is the (unnecessary) supreme compliment. Complainers, of whom there have been few, pretty much get the "what can I do?" shrug.<p>My approach requires stong self-confidence. I would add at the risk of offending younger editors that it also requires a lot of experience.<p>In 20-plus years of editing, I have made fewer than a dozen errors that required corrections. That's too many, of course, but not a bad record considering that most of them were made in situations where "editing" was scarcely possible because of deadlines and workload.<p>One alarming problem I've developed in recent years is indifferent typing. I think older editors have to pay special attention to that; failing eyesight has something to do with it, as does preoccupation with the "big picture" to the detriment of detail. Our paper recently changed to an editing system based on Microsoft Word, and although it has its bugs and generally is unpopular on the desk, I like it because for the first time in a long time I can actually see the copy clearly.<p>I think I just wrote my Maoist self-criticism.<p>[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]</p>

Well put.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica ,sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Our paper recently changed to an editing system based on Microsoft Word, and although it has its bugs and generally is unpopular on the desk, I like it because for the first time in a long time I can actually see the copy clearly.<hr></blockquote><p>A-ha! That explains all those horrible (read incorrect) end-of-line word breaks!

I think they re-created the copy desk shortly after I left. (No, my leaving probably didn't have anything to do with it.)