Sub-editors may be vanishing but
Guardian writer
Peter Wilby believes they are essential in the upkeep of newspapers, even though their roles probably will change and diminish.
Many newspapers do not see a need for sub-editors, for example,
Archant Suffolk announced last week
that they plan on getting advertising designers to lay out pages and reporters to sub each other's copy in place of 20 sub-editor positions. Other papers have centralized subbing into categories that serve several titles, while others have outsourced subbing.
Times writers maximize search results with key words instead of a traditional introduction.
The argument for phasing out sub-editors is that if an article's gist is clear, then there is no need for perfect grammar. If an article has factual errors and spelling mistakes, then those reporters should be fired and replaced with those who write with higher standards.
Wilby argues that a brilliant reporter does not equate to a brilliant sub-editor since those two jobs require different skills. "There is something odd about the perpetual demand for multi-skilling in newspapers and other industries," Wilby writes. "The division of labour was once seen as the chief dynamic of economic progress, allowing each of us to perfect a particular set of talents and skills."
But, the primary question is whether or not readers will pay for an unpolished finished product. The popularity of blogs indicate that people read articles that do not go through a sub-editor, but if newspapers want to survive, Wilby states that they must "persuade
people they are premium, high quality products" by maintaining and further yet, improving "their reputations for reliability, clarity, consistency and coherence."
In the future, however, Wilby believes technology will probably perform the more routine subbing functions.
Source:
The Guardian
