Sub-editors are “a layer that can be eliminated”, according to former Mirror editor Roy Greenslade.
I’m going to ignore the comments at the bottom of the PG story which point out Roy’s own failings, and look at his arguments instead. And I haven’t found a copy of his speech, so I’m trusting the PG report.
First of all, Mr Greenslade suggests that journalists are now “highly educated” and can sub-edit their own stories after writing them.
I really don’t know where to start with this one, but I’m going to resist the urge to push my tongue into my bottom lip and make some incredibly un-PC duh noises.
Even though I am someone who can string a sentence together, I am always grateful for an extra pair of eyes. Afterall, even world renowned authors have their copy checked.
As a trainee hack, my writing was probably cleaner than most, but it would have been insane to let that naive 20-something write straight into the paper.
Actually, one of my district papers was that stupid. All my copy for the Smalltown Obscurer went straight on the page, maybe with a spell check if the sub could be arsed. And the hopeless editor certainly never read it.
To be fair it generally worked ok – but this was because it was my home-town where I knew practically everyone so took huge pride in my work.
Of course I made a few errors, but they were usually simple things which the sub or editor could have picked up. I think it was incredibly unfair looking back that I had to carry the can alone.
But most trainee hacks go where the work is and don’t necessarily have the strong local knowledge.
Mr G also stated that “We’re now producing highly educated, well-trained journalists, who of course don’t need to have their work changed.”
That use of “of course” really winds me up.
The statement reminds me of the awful (but enjoyable) Judge Dread film (Stallone at his best) where these clones are created in a couple of hours, complete with all the combat skills of seasoned soldiers.
Does Mr G really believe that hacks come out of journalism college knowing everything they could possibly need to know? Even though many believe they do, this is just nonsense “of course”.
Apart from law and shorthand, nearly all journalism is learnt on the job. Having a strong sub-editor who can talk a reporter through their mistakes and mock their ignorance is a vital part of creating a well-trained hack. Without the guidance of subs, particularly in a reporter’s formative years, the overall quality of reporting will fall incredibly quickly.
And I couldn’t let this point pass without looking at the “well-educated” reporters we have these days. At every paper I’ve worked, there have been one or two outstanding journalists, but these are always outnumbered (often heavily) by journymen, idlers, wastrels and charlatans.
I also know of a few reporters who can bring in some fantastic stories and have excellent interview techniques but can’t write very well. I’d much rather have a reporter like that and help them develop their writing than a handful of spoon-fed monkeys who write perfect prose.
Mr G argues that all of this isn’t ideal, but commercially it might be necessary.
Again, I just can’t agree with that. Poorly subbed writing can quickly damage a paper’s credibility. Readers will be less inclined to read a paper littered with spelling mistakes and errors, and a loss of readers means a loss of advertisers.
It may see saving on the wage bill in the short term, but it damages the product, and thus its commercial value in the long run.
Mr G also believes there are two types of sub-editors – those who work on local or natioanl rags to templates and the creative types who write Sun headline.
I have to wonder whether Mr G has stepped into a regional newspaper office in the past ten years.
Templated pages are used, but not all the time. Pretty much every page is created on the differing merits of the story, headline, pictures and other furniture.
While the front few pages of my paper always have the same shaped adverts, the pages certainly don’t follow the same rules every week and look very different.
Mr G then makes a point, perhaps contradicting his previous arguements, that it’s not that we don’t need subs, but rather we can hire someone for £1 an hour to do the same job in a developing nation.
The local knowledge is the strongest counter to that, but there are other arguments.
As an editor I imagine it would be very difficult to try and talk through what I want from a page over the phone. To do that when English isn’t the individuals first language would make it even tougher.
I can see a time when technology will improve and the role of the creative sub will be less – say a programme which can put all the various aspects of a page together like a jigsaw and suggest several layout options – but we’re not there yet.
And I don’t believe there will ever be a time when copy does not need to be subbed, unless we’re happy to become a txt spk nayshun of dunderheads.