By John Russial, University of Oregon
Special to the Poynter Institute
Several newspapers have begun to reorganize the way copyediting is done by shifting copyeditors onto topic teams. At these papers, copyeditors work closely with reporters, discussing problems and raising questions early in the process. Dailies in Wichita, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Portland have taken this approach to varying lengths--from dissolving the copy desk as a separate entity (Wichita) to moving some copyeditors onto teams while preserving a traditional slot-rim setup (Portland). The benefits of the reorganization, according to team copyeditors, include:
- Mutual and growing respect between reporters and copyeditors.
- Fewer stories that need a lot of work at the last minute.
- Greater job satisfaction. Team copyeditors say that their jobs have been enriched and that the hours often are better.
Taken to its extreme, this organizational change eliminates an institution that has been around for more than a hundred years, particularly at larger papers. Tradition is no reason to retain an out-of-date form, but the jury is still out on whether the copy desk is anachronistic. In the trade press, questions have been raised about the quality of editing under the new system, particularly about what appears to be an increase in errors. This short article raises several other questions about the idea of eliminating the copy desk as a distinct department. It summarizes a longer analysis of the issue, which is scheduled to be published in 1997 in the Newspaper Research Journal.
1. If the copy desk is eliminated, who will serve as mentors for copyeditors?
Who will teach less-experienced copyeditors what they need to know, and how will experienced copyeditors be encouraged to improve? The slot has long been a mentor -- for new copyeditors, for experienced copyeditors, and, in some cases for reporters. Newspapers that have gone the farthest in copy desk reorganization have no more slots. That leave a training gap.
2. Can newspapers maintain an institutional commitment to copyediting if there is no copyediting institution?
By devoting staff resources to a copy desk, the organization sends a message that it is serious about the tasks that members of that department do. Advocates of the change contend that eliminating the copydesk will not eliminate copyediting. True, but the real question is one of degree of attention. Without a desk, it may be too easy to let traditional copyediting tasks slide in favor of tasks that can appear to have a higher priority, such as reporting or writing.
3. Can reporters write good headlines?
Why even ask this question? Because at least two papers have shifted responsibility for writing headlines to reporters. The idea is to have reporters write heads to a set of "generic" specs. Those heads are then "tweaked" by presentation editors to fit the real specs. It is difficult to see how good headlines can be written under those conditions. The blunt answer to Question 2 is probably no. Headline-writing is an art, and reporters are used to working on a broader canvas. Can they be retrained? Is there enough time? Do they even want to write heads? Anecdotal evidence suggests the answers are "maybe, no and probably not."
4. Is a specialized copy desk inefficient, or does it add value?
The traditional desk operation has been characterized as an inefficient, even counterproductive, station on an antiquated assembly line. Many businesses are moving away from that sort of linear workflow.
In management terms, such reorganizations are often known as reengineering, a neologism of the sort that copyeditors love to hate. Reengineering has been applied successfully in businesses that use a repeatable process to produce a given product or service. An example is an insurance company that retrains specialists and provides them with the information to perform all facets of a policy-writing task, not only one part of it. Dramatic gains in efficiency and service have been recorded in some cases.
Newspapers, however, produce a different product each day under extreme deadline conditions. Specialization may be the only way to ensure quality under those conditions. As Gene Foreman of The Inquirer put it, "You can say a lot of things about the problems of the copy desk, but they are very efficient at pooling resources at the end of an editing cycle."
Is this downsizing by another name?
It may not be, and it certainly doesn't have to be, but in these times, some may find the opportunity too tempting to resist. If this type of reorganization leads to staff reductions, something--such as copyediting, reporting or design--will suffer. You don't get something for nothing.
