Testy Copy Editors :: View topic

Bottom line ... I think she just wants to be an editor of words that matter. And she wants to do it for an employer that pays its people well.

Not me. I've lost faith. One way or the other, I'll be out of newspapers in three to five years. It'll be even money as to whether I'll be pushed before I jump.

But I don't want to tell her that.

...jobs are cut and only the best are getting jobs?

I know a number of people who make a good living at freelance book copy editing. There are always concerns that book publishers are cutting back as well, of course. But it's still do-able.

As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time.

And a test of how much ink in the veins one has. Tjhese things go in cycles. One year there are layoffs, the next you can't find staff from love or money.

As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time.

However, I still believe there's a future for the newspaper. People like the tactile feel of it.

gunslinger wrote:

However, I still believe there's a future for the newspaper. People like the tactile feel of it.

You mean like LPs (and CDs)?

As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time.

Think about some of the most historical events in the past 80 years, or even seven years ago this September. That event happened at just about the worst moment for an a.m. news cycle, but I'm sure they sold a lot of those puppies on Sept. 12.

The future of news is in news, and the folks who know how to get it and how to edit it are the ones who are going to survive. Community papers and the AP to a shrinking extent are about the only organizations that are really keeping an eye on day-to-day news anymore. The overpaid bureaucrats who don't know the basics who run the show at most places today will have to move to advertising and PR.

When they are the ones deciding who gets laid off and signing off on doing this, I'm not so sure.

This might sound funny, but we probably end up with more editing in the end than we did before. In the case of this America's Most Wanted story going up in pieces, we probably had three editors reading through and making changes online throughout the day. Then the story is then put together from the edited pieces for the print product. It then gets another edit or two before even going to a copy editor (who also looks at it). I've had reporters call me at home to have me read something during these early morning shifts. We teach them to show good judgment and call with any questions. We also teach them to go ahead and post things immediately that they feel good about. In these cases, we go back in rather quickly and edit. You have to hire people you can trust and then train them to show good judgment. If people you employ don't show good judgment or if you can't trust them, then you need to get new people. It's worth pointing out that any reporter with a laptop and a wireless card can at least post text directly to the Internet.

vtuss wrote:

When they are the ones deciding who gets laid off and signing off on doing this, I'm not so sure.

From this comment at that link:

Quote:

Yep, signing off on more editing and hiring the right people is beyond the pale. We'll have none of that, thanks.

(FWIW the first comment, asking the questions that prompted the reply, was from me.)

Believe me, people can wait until you make it right.

So your ideal newspaper would contain only investigative reporting?

Author:	Wabberjocky [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Should I lie?
An acquaintance of mine who's finishing up a distinguished college career this summer with a Dow Jones Fund internship asked me flat-out the other day if I thought there was a long future for a copy editor in this business â€” if it was something she should plan on as a career. I really don't think there is. But I'm hesitant to say it outright. If you're more optimistic than I am, what would you say to her?

Author:	B Cubbison [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:
There's a future for copy editors, but it might not be in this business, or one that looks like this business. For a career, try the corporate communications world. If you want to be in journalism, it's best to be flexible.

Author:	Editer [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Right. I'm being recruited by a private company that provides economic and political info reports for business clients. The pay would be better than I've ever gotten at a newspaper. No one knows for sure what the information landscape will look like in 10 years, but there will be people paying for useful information in some fashion, and providers who recognize the value of editing. No guesses here as to how many or in what form.

Author:	SusanV [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm convinced that the most prospects will be in online venues. I will be very surprised to still be working in print within a decade. But I do expect to still be working as a copy ed.

Author:	KyleJRM [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Should I lie?
Ask her: Are you attached to journalism, or is any editing fine? Are you good enough to be able to hold your own when a significant number of jobs are cut and only the best are getting jobs? How little are you willing to work for?

Testy Copy Editors http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/

Should I lie? http://www.testycopyeditors.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9248	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Wabberjocky [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, she doesn't believe in the BS about "good journalism is its own reward," as the editors of parsimonious papers say as a way of justifying working people to the bone. Especially when there's no guarantee that you can work you way up the food chain like those of my generation could. I think the food chain is pretty well rusted through. My impression is that she wants to be in journalism, and she still defines that as newspapering as done by traditional media companies. But, like the rest of us, I think she has a hard time seeing where the splinters of traditional media will eventually scatter. Bottom line ... I think she just wants to be an editor of words that matter. And she wants to do it for an employer that pays its people well.

Author:	KyleJRM [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Wabberjocky wrote: Bottom line ... I think she just wants to be an editor of words that matter. And she wants to do it for an employer that pays its people well. Follow-up question: Do you own a time machine?

Author:	Wabberjocky [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Not me. I've lost faith. One way or the other, I'll be out of newspapers in three to five years. It'll be even money as to whether I'll be pushed before I jump. But I don't want to tell her that.

Author:	KyleJRM [ Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Wabberjocky wrote: Not me. I've lost faith. One way or the other, I'll be out of newspapers in three to five years. It'll be even money as to whether I'll be pushed before I jump. But I don't want to tell her that. You should be honest. There will still be jobs in newspapers for the remainder of her professional life, but those jobs will carry baggage that many will not want to face. It is only fair that they know exactly what they are getting into.

Author:	Powderhorn [ Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:10 am ]
Post subject:
I had a nice lunch with my publisher from college last week, and among the interesting and insightful things he had to say was that he was a bit irritated with how J-profs don't tell their students to expect a rough (and declining) job market. Jim, as we've already worked together and clearly that didn't work out well despite a lack of dishonesty or inability on the part of myself or our mutual superiors, I'd be hesitant to suggest that this is a career to someone of youth (and I'm young -- just not as young as I was 10 years ago). I have a few things in the works now, but how long would anything last? Hard to say. I know that a prevailing view is that the Web will be around after print is gone, but I like the finality of a print product -- deadlines are among the reasons I got into this work, and the idea that you get more than one chance to get it right robs the position of some of its value. We are here to be guardians of the language and to write the first draft of history. Maybe I was even a little too late, but if the passion is for print, don't sell it as "the job will evolve" -- be blunt: "The job will be completely different." It was difficult visiting my old newsroom at the UW and seeing young people enthusiastic about journalism. I'd love to tell them that the jobs will always be there -- but for whom would I be doing that? I'd like to say them, but there's a sneaking suspicion on my end that it would just make me feel better. For those of you with pensions nearly ready to go, bravo! I envy the fact that you lived in times when this was a stable career and something you could retire from. Myself, I've told my wife from the time we met that I'm fucked once print journalism passes the brink. Heh. Happy thoughts on my first anniversary.

Author:	Heartodixie [ Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:23 am ]
Post subject:
Until we go back to communicating with grunts and gestures, someone's going to have to look out for the written word, in my opinion. I think the old saw about knowing your stuff and being flexible and up to date on technology is still sound advice. Newspapers have been focused on shooting themselves in the foot for, what, the past 30 years? So many have thrived for a century or more despite the mail, the telegraph, the phone, radio, television. The amount of editing work is expanding exponentially today. Papers will have to stop cutting back on the basics at some point, and when that happens, those who have kept at it and have up-to-date skills will be sitting pretty again. I doubt newspapers and wires will ever pay great, though.

Author:	KyleJRM [ Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:05 am ]
Post subject:
The problems we face are far deeper than whether people will get their news in print form. This isn't just "will the internet replace the newspaper," as people are fond of casting the argument. There are multiple problems, and the focus on online advertising revenues is distracting us from deeper issues. First, journalists are becoming structurally underemployed. You can run a news operation on far fewer employees than used to be needed. As we've all been speculating, copy desks are going to go the way of foreign bureaus. One in six media jobs has disappeared in the last eight years: (Link to E&P story here.) I don't believe that these jobs are being lost because of tough economic times. I believe they are being lost because advances in technology make them unneccessary. Combine that with the constant flow of j-school grads into the market, and we see wages drop and the incentive for experienced editors to stay in the business diminished. That's just problem No. 1, though. There's also the fact that our business is built on credibility, and we just don't have that anymore. And all the cheap gimmicks we use to try to ratchet up circulation isn't helping that. Then, the Internet is a different challenge than mail, radio, television were. There is now exponentially more information than ever before, and people are willing to listen to biased, poorly researched information as long as it feeds their biases and vanities. Newspapers are in trouble, certainly. But we are so focused on that problem that we haven't noticed that journalism itself is in trouble as well.

Author:	KfitzR [ Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:
I spent 15 years in Canadian dailies, including some respectable titles, then crossed if you will to the "dark side" to do communications - in my case for a large union. The need for editing, clear writing and succinct messages has not vanished, and that job was replete with deadlines. Now retired, I'm doing the same kind of stuff for an arts centre in my home town, including a website. The skills translate and will always be needed.

Author:	Bumfketeer [ Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:
How about suggesting your friend engage in some old-time hockey and become a reporter for a while and then move to copy editing later...if indeed there still is such a thing by then?

Author:	night train [ Sat May 31, 2008 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Doesn't it seem like there will always have to be a copy-editing, design crew to actually PUT OUT THE PAPER after everyone else has gone home?

Author:	Editer [ Sat May 31, 2008 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:
What paper?

Author:	Phillip Blanchard [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:
The story in question doesn't seem to be the sort that calls for second-to-second updates. What's the rush? And wtf goes with "The Star Car, the Star's mobile Wi-Fi hotspot"? I don't mean to be dismissive, but whoop-dee-do. Meet the Star Car: what looks like souped-up SUV turns out to a reporterâ€™s version of the Batmobile â€” a rolling mini-newsroom equipped with dash-mounted video camera and wireless laptop all connected to the Star Carâ€™s Wi-Fi antennae that allows reporters and photographers to transmit stories, photos, audio and video live from the field. How cool is that? (Carrboro Commons) * Not very. I'd feel pretty silly driving around in that thing, and it seems that it would attract attention, which often is the last thing a reporter would want. The equipment might be useful, but it would be more useful installed in, say, my beat-up 1996 Ford Escort. *

Author:	dangermike [ Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Should I lie?
KyleJRM wrote: ...jobs are cut and only the best are getting jobs? The best? Or the cheapest.

Author:	nickb [ Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:
As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time.

Author:	KfitzR [ Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:
I just had a lunch with someone who asked me to do occasional assignments - which suits me fine - who said - in exactly these words - Name your price. And that's for time thinking of what I am doing as well as time doing. My going rate is about $50 an hour, Canadian.

Author:	longwords [ Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:
One thing I have been thinking about a lot lately is book publishing. It seems to me that there was a time when each book published was at least edited by one copy editor. Shakespeare and others in his time didn't have copy editors overseeing their copy, although the people setting the type may have altered the copy. I think writers are supposed to do more self-editing these days, or pay for an editor or book doctor on their own. I think a limited number of people care about language the way copy editors care about language, and the Internet may be changing attitudes about style and spelling. If style and spelling become less important to people, then copy editing won't matter as much. I think jobs that only involve editing copy are going to be much scarcer in the future, in journalism and outside journalism. The last few jobs ads I've looked at that have asked for copy editing skills explicitly have also asked for layout skills, general pr skills (public speaking, in one case), extensive clerical skills ("proficiency with all of Microsoft Office suite" and more), or Web skills (Flash, Dreamweaver, other software). In these ads, copy editing is sort of like the ability to use a keyboard. It is one of a number of skills needed to get a job, but it isn't usually enough on its own. If someone graduating from college now told me they wanted to do straight copy editing, I would advise them to become fluent in a foreign language or two so they could do translating and editing. Their other alternative is to become a legal secretary or paralegal.

Author:	McGarry [ Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:27 am ]
Post subject:
To my knowledge, there are no in-house book copy editors. It's all done by freelancers, at an hourly rate. You can find the average rate if you poke around a bit on the interwebs.

Author:	Editer [ Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:
I know a number of people who make a good living at freelance book copy editing. There are always concerns that book publishers are cutting back as well, of course. But it's still do-able.

Author:	gunslinger [ Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:
A long time ago, when my beard wasn't the color of snow, a crusty old editor told me that the end of newspapers wouldn't come at the hands of new technology such as cable news (yeah, we're talkin' about a time when cable was young) but when "damned yuppies" take over the newsroom. I guess he was right. The problem is that current newsroom managers just don't have the cojones to really grapple with the future. The "damned yuppies" are too busy prancing around like rabid squirrels to really figure out the future of the newspaper. I suppose the newspaper is on the decline. I hope to be retired before the actual fall, but I don't think I'll make it. However, I still believe there's a future for the newspaper. People like the tactile feel of it. Much more substantial than a bunch of electrons. And the young folk will soon discover the limitations of the electronic media such as the Web. Remember, the Internet is basically controlled by governments. A week or so ago, if my memory serves me, Pakistan tried to cut access to blogs it didn't like and accidentally shut down the Internet to half of Asia. Or something like that. Once the youngsters realize that publishing exclusively on the Web means basically being at the mercy of some government bureaucrat (yes, U.S.A., we're talking about you, too), I think that they will see the value of some real-world publication. Of course, I might be long dead before that happens. But, hey, I'm still free to rant. For now.

Author:	bluepencil [ Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:48 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I know a number of people who make a good living at freelance book copy editing. There are always concerns that book publishers are cutting back as well, of course. But it's still do-able. As a favor to one of our reporters (yes, he is paying me), I'm in the midst of a final proofread of a book he is writing for a large, prestigious publishing house. If what I am seeing on these page proofs is an example of the copy-editing "talent" that publishers are using, sharper -- and better -- eyes are desperately, desperately needed.

Author:	Editer [ Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:
It's often a question not of the quality of the eyes available but of what the publisher is willing to pay for. In other words, much like the newsroom.

Author:	paulwiggins [ Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:
nickb wrote: As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time. And a test of how much ink in the veins one has. Tjhese things go in cycles. One year there are layoffs, the next you can't find staff from love or money.

Author:	KyleJRM [ Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:
paulwiggins wrote: And a test of how much ink in the veins one has. Tjhese things go in cycles. One year there are layoffs, the next you can't find staff from love or money. Perhaps, but I still believe that the current round of job cuts are less about advertising revenue dropping on the bad side of the business cyle, and much more about structural changes in the way news is produced and distributed. And yet, in newspapers I stay. Stupid inky blood.

Author:	jobetta [ Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:
nickb wrote: As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time. I'm finishing grad school in a few weeks. I did a Dow Joes internship last summer (it was the best job I've ever had), and I wish I hadn't read this thread. Fortunately, I've been well-prepared by my professors, who spend a lot of time telling us how hard it is to get a job right now. If any of you are in the Pacific Northwest and have the power to hire copy editors (or reporters), I'm free after March 30.

Author:	nickb [ Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:21 am ]
Post subject:
gunslinger wrote: However, I still believe there's a future for the newspaper. People like the tactile feel of it. You mean like LPs (and CDs)?

Author:	Powderhorn [ Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
nickb wrote: gunslinger wrote: However, I still believe there's a future for the newspaper. People like the tactile feel of it. You mean like LPs (and CDs)? People still interact with their music the same way they have for decades: speakers and headphones.

Author:	ndugan1 [ Sat May 31, 2008 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:
nickb wrote: As someone who is finishing college and headed off on a Dow Jones Newspaper Fund internship in June, this is the most depressing thread I've read in a long time. I did the exact same thing four years ago, nickb, and was planning a career as a newspaper copy editor, and still am. Call me naive and idealistic, but I think newspapers will survive until well after I've retired. There may not be as many of them, but they will be around. Think about some of the most historical events in the past 80 years, or even seven years ago this September. That event happened at just about the worst moment for an a.m. news cycle, but I'm sure they sold a lot of those puppies on Sept. 12. You can't record history in the same way on a Web page than can be erased even quicker than it was created. There's an idea of permanence there -- this is what happened on this date, and this is how the world was then and how it was changed. And the same can be applied to seemingly inconsequential events, like the city council meeting that approved a smoking ban or changed the zoning so a new stadium could be built. The concept of recording a snapshot of time in an unchangeable way has existed long before newspapers were around -- they just perfected it. Is it possible that some newspaper companies will finally see the cost of newsprint, ink and delivery trucks as too much overhead and go Web-only? Hell yes. But they'll still need someone to edit the copy, regardless of where it goes. I've seen raw copy in lots of places; it's most definitely not ready for publication. And maybe some think publishers will assume paying off one libel suit is a fair trade-off for eliminating an entire desk. But not when those suits start popping up everywhere. Jim, be honest with your colleague about your opinion. I happen to disagree.

Author:	Powderhorn [ Sat May 31, 2008 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:
ndugan1 wrote: Think about some of the most historical events in the past 80 years, or even seven years ago this September. That event happened at just about the worst moment for an a.m. news cycle, but I'm sure they sold a lot of those puppies on Sept. 12. Somewhat off-topic, but I kept the Extra from the Arizona Republic on 9/11 as well as Sept. 12 issues of the Republic, Scottsdale Tribune, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Additionally, the weekly cycle Time, Newsweek and The Economist. I agree there's something to the tactile nature of major events, but does the general public rush out and buy them unless said major event transpired? Seems like here in the (24K circ.) sticks, people are buying the paper to find out who the student of the month is more so than how many are dead in Myanmar. And that's some dry copy to read. Local news-gathering organizations will continue to exist (In print? Who knows.), and editing will have to happen. However, does our young friend want a career in purveying world events or "Hey, Mable" stories?

Author:	Heartodixie [ Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:
The future of news is in news, and the folks who know how to get it and how to edit it are the ones who are going to survive. Community papers and the AP to a shrinking extent are about the only organizations that are really keeping an eye on day-to-day news anymore. The overpaid bureaucrats who don't know the basics who run the show at most places today will have to move to advertising and PR. So, yeah, I second the opinion that there'll always be a place for news writers and editors.

Author:	vtuss [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:45 am ]
Post subject:
Heartodixie wrote: The future of news is in news, and the folks who know how to get it and how to edit it are the ones who are going to survive. Community papers and the AP to a shrinking extent are about the only organizations that are really keeping an eye on day-to-day news anymore. The overpaid bureaucrats who don't know the basics who run the show at most places today will have to move to advertising and PR. When they are the ones deciding who gets laid off and signing off on doing this, I'm not so sure.

Author:	Editer [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:
vtuss wrote: When they are the ones deciding who gets laid off and signing off on doing this, I'm not so sure. From this comment at that link: Quote: This might sound funny, but we probably end up with more editing in the end than we did before. In the case of this America's Most Wanted story going up in pieces, we probably had three editors reading through and making changes online throughout the day. Then the story is then put together from the edited pieces for the print product. It then gets another edit or two before even going to a copy editor (who also looks at it). I've had reporters call me at home to have me read something during these early morning shifts. We teach them to show good judgment and call with any questions. We also teach them to go ahead and post things immediately that they feel good about. In these cases, we go back in rather quickly and edit. You have to hire people you can trust and then train them to show good judgment. If people you employ don't show good judgment or if you can't trust them, then you need to get new people. It's worth pointing out that any reporter with a laptop and a wireless card can at least post text directly to the Internet. Yep, signing off on more editing and hiring the right people is beyond the pale. We'll have none of that, thanks. (FWIW the first comment, asking the questions that prompted the reply, was from me.)

Author:	vtuss [ Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Editer wrote: vtuss wrote: When they are the ones deciding who gets laid off and signing off on doing this, I'm not so sure. From this comment at that link: Quote: This might sound funny, but we probably end up with more editing in the end than we did before. In the case of this America's Most Wanted story going up in pieces, we probably had three editors reading through and making changes online throughout the day. Then the story is then put together from the edited pieces for the print product. It then gets another edit or two before even going to a copy editor (who also looks at it). I've had reporters call me at home to have me read something during these early morning shifts. We teach them to show good judgment and call with any questions. We also teach them to go ahead and post things immediately that they feel good about. In these cases, we go back in rather quickly and edit. You have to hire people you can trust and then train them to show good judgment. If people you employ don't show good judgment or if you can't trust them, then you need to get new people. It's worth pointing out that any reporter with a laptop and a wireless card can at least post text directly to the Internet. Yep, signing off on more editing and hiring the right people is beyond the pale. We'll have none of that, thanks. (FWIW the first comment, asking the questions that prompted the reply, was from me.) Well, I posted that link before seeing the explanation. But: 1) Because everything that newspaper bosses say is going to happen happens? I'm a bit more skeptical. 2) Even he admits that this situation was way odd in that there was very little to edit. Still, there was something that needed editing! What about all those other pieces? How long is long enough to damage credibility? 3) Everyone needs an editor. (I've edited this piece myself) Every night we all go through pieces that get multiple reads that have glaring omissions, errors, spelling mistakes, even just misreadings or missteps that no one ever considered? Will waiting 10 minutes for another set of eyes really be a problem to anyone? Just because we can do it, should we? 4) And while it may be good (or good enough) for newspapers, I certainly don't think it's good for copy editors. I think Doug is saying that in his post, too. (Believe me, this struck a chord after wading through a Sunday night rim of copy that went through several hands and at least two pieces were unpublishable jibberish until hitting the copy desk. Another we ran, and I wasn't all that hot about it. And this is copy that sat for days.)