The Seven Deadly Sins of Copy Editing

Once again, we were not assigned a topic for this week's blog.  I really don't like that! Haha.  I find it hard to be creative about copy editing topics to blog about every week.  Ok enough venting.

One of the readings for lecture this week was an article on the ponyter Web site called, "The Seven Deadly Copy Editing Sins."  They are as follows:

1. Arrogance

2. Assumptions

3. Sloppiness

4. Indifference

5. Ignorance 

6. Laziness

7.  Inflexibility

At first, I thought arrogance was kind of a stretch.  But then I reread it and now it makes more sense and definitely deserves to be on this list.  The article compared this sin to selfishness.  The editor should ALWAYS have the interest of the reader in mind.  

Assumptions is another important one.  The saying "if your mother says she loves you, check it out" fits this category perfectly.  It is up to the editor to make sure things are spelled correctly, information is true, numbers makes sense, etc.  It is obviously the reporter's responsibility to get these things right also, but the editor is the final check to catch mistakes before the audience sees  the finished project.

Sloppiness is important, but I think it resembles laziness and assumptions quite a bit.  I think they all could possibly go in the same category.  Nevertheless, I think sloppiness is more about the little things than the "big picture."  It's not whether a source is made up or information is false, but rather that all page numbers are accounted for and the date on the paper is correct.  Things like this constitute sloppiness rather than another one of the deadly sins.

Indifference is important.  Editors should know what is a front page news story and what isn't.  It also means things should be more creative instead of bland.  Readers want things to be creative and new instead of the same old thing they are used to.

I do not think that ignorance needs to be its own sin, but poynter made it one.  It is important to make sure that names are correct and match photos, etc. but I think that if one is ignorant it could also mean they are lazy.  I do not see much of a difference between those two words.

I think laziness is by far the deadliest sin.  An editor's job is specifically to NOT be lazy and fix the mistakes others have made.  If he or she is going to be lazy, they are failing at their job..BIG TIME.  It takes a patient and precise person to be an editor.  It also takes a person who is committed to finding errors and is not going to be lazy and let them slide.  This cold result in the respect of the publication decreasing.

The last sin is inflexibility.  Editors need to have knowledge in a wide variety  of areas.  They need to know guidelines for sports and regular writing.  They need to be willing to work late hours in order for a publication to be produced  on time with all accurate information.  They need to be willing to ask for help if need be and make sacrifices, such as staying later.

All of these sins could be incredibly deadly to an editor's job, reputation and respect from co-workers.  Until next week,

-sar 

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeep*

Let me just start off by saying that I really like when we have a certain topic to blog on for the week.  I'm sure many people like being able to chose to blog about WHATEVER they want but I find it a lot harder and prefer some guidance.  With that being said, I was kind of at a loss for this week so decided to blog on the reading for lecture.  I know, I know..real creative.

 All of this week's readings for lecture dealt with profanity and obscenities and the debate over whether or not they should be printed.  According to AP Style, they should not be used in stories unless they are part of a direct quote and have a compelling reason to be included.  Writers are supposed to try and find a way to convey the message without actually using the "curse word."  If it MUST be used, the story needs to be flagged at the top so that readers are warned before the read the story.

Personally, I think that the use of obscenities is vulgar and unnecessary.  These such words are considered inappropriate and disrespectful by the public.  Therefore, there is really no need to print them.  I feel it is just setting yourself up for comments.  People are going to be offended; that is a no brainer.  That could be avoided by just not printing such words at all.  If a word was completely necessary and the quote would not have the full effect without it, then I think it should be printed with a *, such as sh*t or dashes or something along those lines.  I do not think that the actual word needs to be printed in order to convey the message to the audience.  People are smart and they will get the idea.  It will make sense to them.

My opinion also applies  to broadcast media.  I think that a "bleep" or such sound should be inserted to censor certain words that may have been said.  People might argue that this is infringing on the freedom of speech and cashes with the First Amendment, but i just do not think profanity is necessary. 

Pictures

The whole debate of which photos to run and why is really a struggle.  In the first scenario, I thin I would run either number 1 or 2.  I know I wouldn't run 3 because it is a bit too graphic and my audience might be offended or disturbed.  I also would not pick number 3 out of respect for his family.  To me, number 4 is confusing and unless you have seen the previous pictures you don't really know what is going on first two pictures get the idea across to the point where the reader knows what is going to happen without actually seeing it. Either photo 1 or 2 including the words "seconds before Dwyer committed suicide" or something like that would explain and show the audience what happened in a tasteful and respectful manner in my opinion. 

I cant really decide about the first picture.  I think I would run it because it conveys to the audience just how MUCH the boy is grieving for his dog and how much he cares.  I also feel it is a different situation because an animal died versus a human.  However, if the event happened locally, which I am sure it did, I don't know if I would want to run it since the boy probably lives there and it young.

The next photo of the family mourning after their boy has drowned I think I would also run, much for the same reason as above.  However, if the boys face was more visible I think i would decide against running it.  The last two are too graphic to be printed in a publication I think, although they are great photos, especially the one of the boy and the fence.  It is hard to make decisions though because I personally feel like you don't always get the full effect of a certain even without a good photo.  For example,  the boy and the fence:  It is one thing to read that a boy fell on a spike fence and to actually SEE it.  It helps show the severity of the event and just how serious and newsworthy it was.

The photo of the man in the newsroom I would definitely show run.  I think it is tasteful and it just doesn't really do much for me.  I know thats not really a good reason, but it's the truth.  The photo is not needed to understand the event and I think it would be unnecessary to run the photo.

I think the picture that I struggled with most was the last one that depicted the Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle.  I agree that the face should definitely have been obscured to protect the woman's identity.  I almost feel that I would show it because I would want the audience to see firsthand what happened and the disrespect shown to this woman and her body.  However, I struggled with all of the photos.  It is hard to decide what is crossing the "line" and what is appropriate.  It is much easier to decide when the photo has been altered to not run it, but when it is the actual photo it is a lot tougher for me to decide what to do.