4 ms·

This is OT, but do editors exist any more? Second sentence in and there is a glaring mistake: "...including one who severed the top a finger...". I notice this

by black6 8y ago

This is OT, but do editors exist any more? Second sentence in and there is a glaring mistake: "...including one who severed the top a finger...". I notice this across the web AND in print publications. I'm an engineer, not a journalist or English major, and I'm constantly picking up typos, grammatical errors (less vs. fewer really grinds my gears), and other mistakes which should never make it to publication. Is it a "first to press" or cost-cutting measure? Or is it that the editor has transitioned from editing the manuscript for mistakes to editing it for the "proper" voice/slant/bias?

fredsted 8y ago
Who's going to pay for the editor with noone wanting to pay for journalism anymore?
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  Many people want to pay for journalism, e.g. have an Economist subscription. Not many people want to pay for badly informed opinions dressed up as journalism with cut & paste from other sites and Reuters. Take the Economist vs. most other publications. An usual Economist article has 20 facts about the issue (e.g. elections in South Sudan) and at the end sometimes an opinion (notwithstanding the general thinking of the Economist). Opinion pieces are easily spotted ("Charlemagne"). Others take 20 facts and write 20 articles and add 10 opinions to each of them to get out more content.
danso 8y ago
I don't think it's off-topic. A grammatical error in the top of the story, especially a non-breaking-news story, is never a good look. Based on my experience in working in web and print, such mistakes are increasingly uncommon because digital publishing makes it relatively easy to tweak text right up to the second of publication -- and afterwards. It's very easy and tempting to make a quick rewording without thinking it needs another set of eyes. Print newspapers definitely had more editors proofing your copy. But even with a completely computerized publishing system, if I wanted to make a last minute change, I still had to go through at least 2 editors. At some point, making a fix requires, well, literally "stopping the presses". Having several editors in a well-defined editing workflow was a luxury that news orgs could afford decades ago, but it was also a necessary cost to prevent any reporter from making a costly "stop the presses" last minute fix. Digital-only news orgs don't face that consequence.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
In a highly competitive situation, any value that can be sacrificed to get ahead of the competition will eventually be sacrificed. Editors cost money. Text without proper editing is worse, but not bad enough to impact readership. Therefore, editors are not needed. Ultimately, what you get is the worst possible product that can still be sold.
- arrrg 8y ago
  They are not selling anything. They are a non-profit. You can donate to them.

by black6 8y ago

fredsted 8y ago

Who's going to pay for the editor with noone wanting to pay for journalism anymore?

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Many people want to pay for journalism, e.g. have an Economist subscription. Not many people want to pay for badly informed opinions dressed up as journalism with cut & paste from other sites and Reuters. Take the Economist vs. most other publications. An usual Economist article has 20 facts about the issue (e.g. elections in South Sudan) and at the end sometimes an opinion (notwithstanding the general thinking of the Economist). Opinion pieces are easily spotted ("Charlemagne"). Others take 20 facts and write 20 articles and add 10 opinions to each of them to get out more content.

danso 8y ago

I don't think it's off-topic. A grammatical error in the top of the story, especially a non-breaking-news story, is never a good look. Based on my experience in working in web and print, such mistakes are increasingly uncommon because digital publishing makes it relatively easy to tweak text right up to the second of publication -- and afterwards. It's very easy and tempting to make a quick rewording without thinking it needs another set of eyes. Print newspapers definitely had more editors proofing your copy. But even with a completely computerized publishing system, if I wanted to make a last minute change, I still had to go through at least 2 editors. At some point, making a fix requires, well, literally "stopping the presses". Having several editors in a well-defined editing workflow was a luxury that news orgs could afford decades ago, but it was also a necessary cost to prevent any reporter from making a costly "stop the presses" last minute fix. Digital-only news orgs don't face that consequence.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

In a highly competitive situation, any value that can be sacrificed to get ahead of the competition will eventually be sacrificed. Editors cost money. Text without proper editing is worse, but not bad enough to impact readership. Therefore, editors are not needed. Ultimately, what you get is the worst possible product that can still be sold.

arrrg 8y ago
They are not selling anything. They are a non-profit. You can donate to them.