Blogs don't need editing, too
My friend and colleague Andy Bechtel at UNC says that Blogs need editing, too. The rush to have newspaper reporters write blogs has not been followed by a rush of copy editors to polish those blogs. It shows. Glitches of all types abound, with posts showing little or no evidence of editing.
He then reprints five sentences in blogs that have grammatical errors in them. They could have come from our blogs, for all I know. I have been known to abuse proper grammar and mangle common spellings. Commenters have been quick to point out the mistakes, too. I'd like to be flawless, but I'm not.
Still, with all of our copy editors tsking at me in the background, I must disagree with Andy.
Every journalist group I've spoken with about blogging has stopped short when I say we don't edit our staff blogs. The editors are more concerned about libel than about the proper use of it's and its. But editing is editing. No good copy editor would stop at editing only for typos and grammar. He or she would edit for style, for content, for libel and for usage. So....
Here's why staff blogs need not be edited:
* Editing slows the process. If part of a good blog post is timeliness, then finding someone to edit it obstructs speed, spontaneity and "striking while the iron is hot." (Yes, I know a good copy editor would tell me to avoid the cliche.)
* Editing promotes uniformity and conformity. Unlike blogs, newspapers have traditionally been built around an institutional voice. The best blogs have a unique voice, the voice of the blogger. Almost by definition, editing would quiet that.
* Trust your staff. Journalists know what libel is, what bad taste is. Trust them to get it right. We tell them, "When in doubt, get someone to read behind you." Yes, we make mistakes in usage, but the point of the post is rarely obscured by the error. And, as previously mentioned, commenters rush to make the correction. Writers are also more careful when they know they are operating without a copy editor's net.
* The cultures of the Web and the newspaper are different. My flip comment is that there are 1,000 retired English teachers scouting for errors in the paper for every one reading the blog. My serious comment is that newspaper readers expect we adhere to the accepted style manuals. Newspapers are used in schools. We're supposed to be right. I know. I get letters every month from readers questioning our grammatical choices. Online, much much less. Or is that fewer?
This shouldn't be interpreted as a slap at copy editing. Copy editing is vital. Without question, a copy editor would have improved the flow of this post. We would copy edit everything intensely if we could afford to. (We could build in ways to avoid the issues pointed out in above bullets.) But it adds to the workload of an already stretched staff. And it isn't necessary.
Now, I have to go out and take my beating at the hands of our staff.
** Correct the grammatical and spelling errors in this post in the comments.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John,
Thanks for the link and the viewpoint. I appreciate a contrarian outlook on this. A few things in response:
1. A good copy editor works quickly. (Just ask one who works in sports or on election night.) It shouldn't take long to give a blog post a basic edit.
2. A good copy editor improves the writing while maintaining a writer's voice. Everything won't read the same way just because it's been edited, and it shouldn't.
3. Some posts have distracting mistakes that weaken their overall message. Grammar errors, misspellings and bad math chip away at our credibility and authority.
4. The Web audience is different, but as newspapers move more toward online and away from print, shouldn't they take their respect for language with them? Or does this mean copy editing slowly fades away along with print media?
P.S. You'll be glad to know that all of the errors from my post were from The News & Observer's blogs.
Posted on October 9, 2007 8:58 PM
Style trumps substance every time. Journalists are so afraid of being sued of "libel", they don't invetigate or report stories they should (I wouldn't know anything about that).
I submit you have no clue what "libel" really is.
And if your "Lessons Learned" post is any example, I'd say having someone edit your comments might not be a bad idea.
Posted on October 9, 2007 9:50 PM
I'm a former copy editor, but I have to agree with John here. Blogs generally don't work without a conversational style. If you're going to write a full-fledged story or a news brief, then write it, run it through the desk and publish it as a story or news brief. Even if it's online only.
Picture it this way -- I've never seen a copy editor accompany a reporter or editor on a radio/TV appearance. That's what we're going for.
Posted on October 10, 2007 8:04 AM
In theory, Andy, I agree. In practice, though, it's much messier. What you're really asking is for me to write a post, find a copy editor, ask him to stop what he is doing and edit my post. Whose deadline is more important, mine or the story he are working on? (Or should I say, on which he are working?:)) When there are as many blogs as we have, that's a lot of requests.
In addition, I and others write many of our posts at home. Do I call the office to find someone to edit me?
I certainly want respect for the language to migrate to the Web with us. We just haven't cracked the nut of the demands of spontaneity, voice, speed and resources. Yet.
Posted on October 10, 2007 10:10 AM
John:
A middle ground is to copy edit and fact check the original posts but not the subsequent comments and discussion. The N-R label does appear on these blogs. This is a double-edged sword: the blogs benefit (gain some authority) from their association with the paper but they also have the potential to diminish the reputation of the paper.
As a reader of several, though certainly not all, of the N-R blogs, it appears that most are actually on-line columns. There is usually some thought-provoking argument or comment; only a few appear to be dashed off. There already appears to be considerable self-editing. Additional editing probably would not reduce the output much but would improve the quality.
Posted on October 10, 2007 11:39 AM