In defense of the copy editor

As a former copy editor, one whose job was deemed to be redundant, I can’t resist sharing this. Writing for Columbia Journalism Review, Craig Silverman argues that fewer copy editors means more errors — and a subsequent loss of journalistic credibility. And he explains how the new news economy is exacerbating this problem:

Among other duties—too many other duties, if you ask me—copy editors are charged with eliminating grammatical, spelling, and factual errors. So, yes, fewer copy editors should result in more errors. But there are other factors at play during this moment in journalism, and they’re further complicating the math.

At the same time papers are thinning the ranks of copy editors, they are also increasing the amount of content being produced. Copy editors used to focus on a print edition. Now they have to deal with breaking news for the Web site, blogs, and other online content. Fewer copy editors are doing more work than ever before. On top of that, fewer reporters—they’re far from immune to layoffs and buyouts—are expected to produce more writing and reporting.

This is where the math gets fuzzy. Or perhaps frightening.

In the new newsroom equation, fewer copy editors and fewer reporters are required to produce more work at the same level of quality.

City Paper writer’s must-read critique of Huffington Post

Amanda Hess of Washington City Paper has written an excellent, insightful article on Huffington Post, critiquing the popular news site’s opportunistic blurring of the line between progressivism and fetishism:

Only a religious conservative would bother to make a stink out of a body part which most men, women, and children have in sets of two. It’s almost enough to make fetishizing nipples on your Web site sound like a liberal position. If it pisses off the religious conservatives, that means it’s a good thing, right? After all, this is just “entertainment,” anyway—who cares if it’s progressive or not when we’re all just staring at nipples and having a good time? As Harry Shearer points out on HuffPo, everybody’s doing it!

The problem is that people really do care about nipples. They care so much about nipples that the Huffington Post devotes pages and pages of photographs to them when women accidentally (or, you know, against their will) reveal them to the public. In that way, there’s no difference between the religious conservative who is scandalized by a bare breast popping up in the middle of his football game and a liberal Web site which devotes its resources to naked chicks. A woman’s body part is a priority. Real women’s issues, not so much.

Not only is Hess’s piece thought-provoking and very well-written, but it’s a much needed tonic for anyone who’s ever been turned off by Huffington Post’s “everything and the kitchen sink” approach to news.

Why Matt Lauer’s interview of Sarah Jane Moore came up short

Rachel Sklar criticizes Matt Lauer’s interview of President Gerald Ford’s would-be assassin, Sarah Jane Moore. Sklar reaches for the profound in the mundane pairing of photos of Moore and American Idol contestant Adam Lambert, but her critique of Lauer makes the larger, unspoken point that the journalist’s job is to explain:

Where Lauer really fell short, though, was in explaining how she’d become rehabilitated. How did she get from crazy gun-toting revolutionary, prison escapee, extreme enough to keep in solitary confinement, to gentle-looking old lady whom he welcomed with, “It’s good to see you.”  He treated her like she wasn’t a criminal, yet failed to set that up in the intro piece and never actually explored how she got there.

Gawker Media's Nick Denton knows where the money isn't

An awfully provocative comment about the news industry from Gawker Media founder Nick Denton, taken from this Q&A with Advertising Age:

People — particularly if they’re under 40 — have news priorities other than those of the editors of The New York Times or producers of the “NBC Nightly News.” A new tablet from Apple — or last night’s episode of “Gossip Girl” or the adventures of the hipster grifter — is a bigger deal than the latest petty scandal in Albany. You think that’s a damning indictment of modern society and a recipe for idiocracy? Fine. Start a nonprofit to cover all the local-government news you think a healthy society needs. But don’t expect advertisers — or commercially-minded publishers or readers, for that matter — to share your interests.

Be accurate or be irrelevant

A friend of mine announced that Kentucky Oaks winner Rachel Alexandra might be shut out of this Saturday’s Preakness by owners looking to enter additional horses in order to prevent the filly from making the field, which is capped at 14 horses.  When I responded that I’d heard a radio report that Rachel Alexandra would be running, he was incredulous, and showed me a story in today’s St. Petersburg Times to verify his information.

“Right,” I responded with a tinge of smugness. “That was from this morning.”

To settle the disagreement, I quickly found an update on ESPN.com, which confirmed the radio report:

Bursting the Masters bubble

At Slate, Robert Weintraub pierces the pomposity of the  Masters golf tournament:

The four-day telecast itself was even thicker with treacle. Give the club credit for limiting commercial interruption, but I’d settle for a few more ads if it meant less of the music and slow pushes on photos of winners from the ’40s. As Phil Mushnick wrote in the New York Post, trying to watch the Masters with “all the scene-setters and homage-paying makes us wonder whether Augusta National members would prefer to watch the Masters as it’s being played live, or sit through a bunch of tributes to the course.” The main effect is to make the viewer want to give in and take that nap.

He also calls Jim Nantz a “corporate shill.” Read it.

Was the coverage of Natasha Richardson too much?

Writing about the late Natasha Richardson, Michael White lays into the media for their role in cultivating what he calls a “growing mood of public sentimentality” that is “potentially more destructive [than cynicism] of the tone of public life”:

Poor Natasha Richardson died during the night. What a truly dreadful thing to happen, the result of what looked like a minor head injury anyone might have suffered on or off the ski slope.

Perhaps that’s why they led this morning’s news bulletins on her death, even on Radio 4. Fairly well-known actress from a famous dynasty, married to a film star, tragic accident etc etc. The papers duly print photos of grief-stricken family members at the hospital, photos which strike me as intrusive, heartless even. The whole packaged affair is, well, ghoulish.

Shafer on Washington Post's bad journalism

Jack Shafer tears the Washington Post a new one as he deconstructs its front-page claim that PCP use is on the rise:

How do stories like the Post‘s get published? As Robert P. Bomboy wrote in 1974, newspapers don’t (but should) keep reporters on the drug beat and few employ editors who are knowledgeable about drugs. The press corps gives into their readers’ worst fears when reporting about drugs, embracing the most sensational or dramatic aspects of the story. And worst of all, the press routinely fails to cross-check information provided by law-enforcement sources.

Journalists are under tremendous pressure to produce articles on deadline that will grab readers’ attention.  But they do the public a disservice when reporting the kind of stories Shafer takes apart.

Newspapers should be like me

Scooping the News lists five ways newspaper Web sites must change. Me? I don’t need to change, because I’m already way ahead of the curve:

1. Two-way communication between the writer and the reader. — I often respond to my peeps.
2. Links to similar stories being published elsewhere on the Web. — All the time.
3. Show us reader comments on the very first page of your Web site. — Yep.
4. Tell us, the readers, about the people writing the stories. — You mean, like about me?
5. Don’t worry about the presentation. — Well, I did take care to choose a snazzy WordPress design.

Eric Deggans nails the Oscars

St. Petersburg Times media critic Eric Deggans is pretty much on the money in his assessment of the 81st Academy Awards.

I agree with Deggans that Hugh Jackman deserves another shot as host, particularly because I think the show’s producers under-utilized his talents. For long stretches, he was nowhere to be found.

Deggans also correctly criticized the gimmick of having past Oscar winners deliver testimonials to the nominees in the best acting categories: