Why you should love your sub-editor
August 6th 2008 08:40
TimmyH has posted on his blog here a rant by a writer against a sub-editor who deleted an indefinite article without just cause. The writer is right that the sub is wrong, and the oh-so clever denigration of the guilty sub-editor is entertaining. But in the greater scheme of things, the criticism makes an ass of the writer, not the sub-editor.
I spent about 20 years as a broadsheet newspaper sub-editor and I've seen my share of confrontations between irate writers and sub-editors. When they reach the shouting stage, there is pretty much always a sub-editor's error behind it, and the sub has no choice but to raise both hands and say mea culpa.
But it doesn't happen very often, because for the great majority of the time the reporter-sub relationship in major newspapers is as well-oiled as it is crucial. Newspaper sub-editors make hundreds - probably thousands - of editorial decisions a day, all aimed at consistency and quality of presentation of the words before them. For the great majority of the time, they go about the business of changing copy in terms of grammar, syntax, house style etc, and never a demurring word from the author.
I once read that the average major metropolitan daily newspaper contains about as many words as an average novel. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it makes the point that it is a huge undertaking to create a serious newspaper every 24 hours, much of it under time pressure. And given that, obviously, mistakes will happen.
Just as reporters will, under pressure and over time, make mistakes. It's something that both sides understand. And therefore, when it does happen, they generally just get in with it.
Let me say that, in case posted by TimmyH, I agree with the writer that the sub-editor made a big mistake. The removal of that indefinite article is indefensible, and suggests inexperience, tiredness or simply an idiosyncratic - and wrong - view of what works in that sentence.
Now let me say also that these things will always happen, because you can't always have an experienced, energized sub-editor completely free of idiosyncratic opinion.
So when it happens, you have the choice of behaving like an experienced writer and accepting the inevitability of changes that you don't agree with, or, in situations where a complaint can be productive, you complain to the relevant authority.
But recognise that the world can not always be a perfect place. Don't create a precious (to use Jayne's perfectly accurate word) hue and cry like this one, which makes one look clever, but only in a superficial way. This will achieve almost nothing. The sub-editor in question will learn the subtle difference between the presentation of the word nosh with and without an indefinite article. But that sub-editor, and all future sub-editors, will continue to work under pressure and, while trying their hardest, will continue to make the occasional mistake.
As will this writer, at which time he may be grateful for the quiet hand of a sub-editor.
So, TimmyH, thanks for the post, but I don't agree with your heading or the sentiment implied in your comment "who'd want to be a journalist?" It suggests a distinction which does not exist - when reporters and sub-editors share a beer at the end of the night and discuss the efforts of producing the extraordinary thing which is a serious daily newspaper, there is not, and never has been, any doubt that both are "journalists".
| 79 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
I really enjoyed this and do sincerely hope that others take the time to give it more than one glance.
I guess the only thing I have to say is that I took a fairly light hearted approach to this post, which might not have been editorially responsible considering its content.
Also, that my "Comment" did not (in my mind) imply a distinction between the two roles. Said from the perspective of either the writer or the sub I think the phrase would be appropriate in creating a sense of irony about the tiny changes to a piece of professional writing which do have to be made on a daily basis. I viewed it as a piece of dialogue that I would have written into the situation.
However, I can fully understand your interpretation and acknowledge that my comment did not contain the clarity that perhaps it should have.
Thanks a lot!
Tim
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Comment by Jayne Kearney
Writers In Writing (and other writing)
This is great. The sub-editor/writer relationship is a delicate creature but, as you say,
"So when it happens (a subbing error), you have the choice of behaving like an experienced writer and accepting the inevitability of changes that you don't agree with, or, in situations where a complaint can be productive, you complain to the relevant authority."
I also agree that this writer absolutely has a point and that his rant was really quite hilarious.
However I was very troubled by the rather error-ridden copy. If I was to write a rant about a sub-editor I would surely make it error-free.
I still wonder if there was irony at work there or just a boiling temper - perhaps this was the indefinite article that broke the cliche's back!!.
Great response to Timmy H's post.
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
A delicate creature indeed. About 18 months ago, many years after leaving newspapers, I was asked to write a book review, and I must admit that I tensed a little at the thought of handing over my carefully crafted words to a faceless sub-editor. My review appeared in the paper with two or three changes, each of them a small but clear improvement on the original. Which naturally infuriated me. Who was this smartarse showing me how to write better?
To paraphrase TimmyH, who would want to be a sub-editor?
Regards,
Chris
Comment by Jayne Kearney
Writers In Writing (and other writing)
I write freelance for a few different publications. One of them has a very young editorial team. The editor often edits my pieces and he's about 27. And you are so right about the infuriation which ensues when his edits are spot-on. I was devastated the first time I was edited as I was completely precious about my lovingly crafted words. I quickly learned the art of letting go.
The generation gap is obvious, however, in the way this ed phrases his comments. He once wrote,(about a par of mine) "The poli rhetoric is dodge." and indeed, the political rhetoric I had chosen to quote was dubious in the extreme!!
Joanne Fedler posted a great blog about the subject of accepting edits gracefully Really Long Link
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Good to hear there's a 27-year-old out there worthy of the title sub-editor. Ya gotta wunda sumtimes ... oh dear, I'm beginning to behave like my grandfather
Thank you for the Jo Fedler link. I am going to go pore over her blog now.
Comment by Jeanne Dininni
Writer's Notes
Thanks for presenting the sub-editor's side of the story. Though I haven't yet read TimmyH's post (I'll be on my way over there when I'm done here), it's obvious that your unique perspective adds an extra dimension to the issue.
As writers, we always find it annoying when any editor makes an editorial decision we consider less than wise. This is only natural, since our work represents us and an editor's erroneous "correction" causes us to appear responsible for the error. I must confess, I always find this state of affairs quite grating. I, personally, have much less trouble with edits that are justified and actually improve the piece than I do with editorial blunders that reflect poorly on me as a writer.
Great post!
Jeanne
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
You're absolutely right. The funny thing is that all those years an editor didn't stop me feeling apprehensive when I was asked a couple of years ago to write a book review for a big newspaper. I submitted my review and crossed my fingers that I wouldn't get someone young, ignorant of the specialist topic of the review, and eager to get to the pub. In the end three or four small changes were made to my piece, and in each instance I could see that the wording had been improved.
Which was humbling
Thanks for your comment,
Chris
Comment by Jeanne Dininni
Writer's Notes
Edits that improve our work may be a bit humbling, but at least they place us in a good light, whereas poorly thought-out editorial changes serve only to make us look bad.
Humility I can live with--it's humiliation that I hate!
Jeanne