Question #1
I came across this article yesterday which addresses ideas we are emphasizing in class about copy editing, while also touching on the journalistic aspect of Weblogs. The article actually is inspired by a panel discussion at an American Copy Editors Society (ACES) conference that explores Weblogs as possibly meaning the end of editing. Read Will Weblogs Make Copy Editors Obsolete? and let me know what you think about the arguments the editors are making. Do you agree that Weblogs will make copy editors obsolete? Explain and explore this idea. Click on “comment” below and away we go …
posted by Kate at 6:02 AM
4 Comments:
I think the newspaper industry cant afford to shun new technology. Imagine how far online newspaper editions and subscriptions could be developed if newspaper staffs and owners had grasped the opportunity years ago to establish online readership as an alternative revenue format? However, blogs will not make copy editors obsolete because they will not make edited, time-invested content obsolete. TV can break nearly every story out there before a newspaper can, but they provide information differently and have obviously not replaced newspapers as an information source. Likewise, blogs will not replace edited content, in print or online for the same reason. Edited content becomes part of the official record, to which we owe a second look for accuracy and credibility. While it may be cool to find blogs pop up with eye witness accounts, chances are there will not be consistent depth of reporting or range of viewpoints presented, and frankly, I dont want to deal with some half-assed attempt at proper english when im trying to learn about an important issue or event. I think that's my main point. People are going to seek out the best quality material available, and in the end that will always mean the material that was written and edited by someone trained to communicate.
11:03 PM, September 25, 2005
Personally, I believe the idea of blogs ending editing is ridiculous. Blogs are a quick and efficient method of transmitting news, but they will never replace the "news." Blogs lack the authenticity that an edited and thoroughly written piece possesses. I like Mangan's point about how the spontaneity of blogs are overrated. When it comes to reporting it is difficult, if not impossible, to write a flawless piece the first time around. And blogs attempt to do this. I think blogs are going to become more popular in the future, but there is definitely a ceiling to their potential.
11:04 PM, September 25, 2005
There seems to be an existing assumption in this interview that journalism will stoop to the lowest possible level. However, no other industry does this.
For example, there are tons of amateur, recreational sports teams across the country. These teams do the bare minimum and have the bare minimum when it comes to extra staff and quality assurance. Often, they don’t practice. They play once or twice a week. They lack support staff and thus keep costs low. However, this does not entice pro teams to follow suit and quit practicing. Pro teams don’t fire their trainers, conditioning coaches, medical personnel, nutritional experts, and public relations teams. The pros understand there are extra costs at their higher-quality level. It’s the same with newspapers.
Back to the sports analogy for a moment: Both pro and amateur teams make mistakes (as do the best papers and bloggers). The difference is that pro teams fill themselves with the most qualified players and surround themselves with the best support staff to help minimize those errors. Granted, some amateurs will play really well. But they will probably not be followed or admired like the pros.
It’s the same with newspapers and their amateur counterparts (not that all news bloggers are journalism amateurs). There are bunches of bloggers out there and many of them have good and/or interesting information at their disposal. But they do not have the credibility or the following of a major US newspaper. Readers aren’t ridiculous; they know bloggers are not necessarily qualified to discuss or properly edit the information on their sites. For hard facts and big stories, most people will go to the source with the highest credentials.
It is less than logical to suggest journalism will acquiesce to an amateur level simply because amateurs abound. If anything, one would hope that “amateur” journalism would seek out ways to be more like the pros. Perhaps we will see the birthing of transient journalism professionals – freelance editors for hire, for example.
2:49 AM, September 26, 2005
I think it is very interesting that this is a blog about blogs. Mangan talks about the inevitability that news rooms will soon have blog-style reporting and the fact that he is talking about this to a reporter on a blog shows that it is true. I think that blogs are a great way to get news out there but I also think that people reading them do not hold them to the same standards that we hold our newspapers and magazines. Internet news has continually been shotty and blogs go along with that. You don't always know if you are reading information reported by a trained professional or by a guy eating cheetos in his basement. When I find something on an internet site that I haven't heard or read of in a publication or on the news I think hmm that's interesting but wait until I hear it somewhere else more substantial before I can trust it.
10:51 AM, September 26, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home