One of the delights of the social media age is seeing the dark secret of our trade dragged out of the newsroom and into the unblinking gaze of the blogging world. Take, for example, the relationship between reporters and sub-editors. Once, this was a cosy, happy relationship. The hacks went into the field, found the stories and phoned in the details. And the subs actually wrote the damn thing.
And then came the 80s, and desktop publishing, and suddenly the reporters and the subs were in the same room. The reporters had computers on their desks and, horror of horrors, were writing copy. The cold war between sub and hack began. What was at stake? Final control of the copy.
The conflict was waged in a thousand little skirmishes on page proofs. Subbing marks tracked the battle for supremacy. Editors watched helplessly, like ineffectual peace-keepers in a covert war. The best subs could polish a piece to such perfection that the journalist didn't even realise how little it resembled their original work. The worst would butcher it into a state where no-one had any idea what it was about.
But the war was silent, hidden. Few, if any, of the readers had any idea of the battle fought over the words in their hands. But all that has changed.
And then came the 80s, and desktop publishing, and suddenly the reporters and the subs were in the same room. The reporters had computers on their desks and, horror of horrors, were writing copy. The cold war between sub and hack began. What was at stake? Final control of the copy.
The conflict was waged in a thousand little skirmishes on page proofs. Subbing marks tracked the battle for supremacy. Editors watched helplessly, like ineffectual peace-keepers in a covert war. The best subs could polish a piece to such perfection that the journalist didn't even realise how little it resembled their original work. The worst would butcher it into a state where no-one had any idea what it was about.
But the war was silent, hidden. Few, if any, of the readers had any idea of the battle fought over the words in their hands. But all that has changed.
First of all, Giles Coren unleashed the rage so many journalists have felt when subs thoughtlessly butcher their copy. The subs then struck back with a slightly whiny complaint about his rude language.
And where am I tracking this? Daring Fireball, an Apple-focused blog. The secret is out. The public know. Our secret war is a secret no more.
Even in our own little corner of the blogosphere, where we new media hacks cluster over a warm API to warm ourselves against the howling winds of the journalist curmudgeons, the issue is bubbling to the surface. Joanna asks a perfectly straightforward question: why shouldn't reporters write their own headlines?
I hit this one a decade ago when I moved from a magazine with a tiny staff (me and the editor, in fact) to one with a whole team of subs. And discovered that the headlines I'd spent hours agonising over, as I'd been trained to do at my last job, were being deleted unread by the subs. Because, y'know, headlines are their job.
The cold war is heating up.
And where am I tracking this? Daring Fireball, an Apple-focused blog. The secret is out. The public know. Our secret war is a secret no more.
Even in our own little corner of the blogosphere, where we new media hacks cluster over a warm API to warm ourselves against the howling winds of the journalist curmudgeons, the issue is bubbling to the surface. Joanna asks a perfectly straightforward question: why shouldn't reporters write their own headlines?
I hit this one a decade ago when I moved from a magazine with a tiny staff (me and the editor, in fact) to one with a whole team of subs. And discovered that the headlines I'd spent hours agonising over, as I'd been trained to do at my last job, were being deleted unread by the subs. Because, y'know, headlines are their job.
The cold war is heating up.
No reason journalists shouldn't write headlines, IMO. The argument that there are two totally discrete skillsets there always struck me as strange, particularly where tasks like heads and standfirsts are concerned. That's writing - subs and journos can both do it. Who writes them should come down to what the economy of labour is in your newsroom. Sounds like it partly did in the career move you describe, Adders.
As for Coren, it was a horrible email, but he was right about the copy.
Sub-editors are also journalists. So the headline really should have said "Reporters vs sub-editors". But I notice the writer made this distinction in the copy.
So what I want to know is: who wrote the headline, and did this person know the difference?
This is a personal blog, so the entire "team" is me. Ergo, I wrote the headline.
And "Reporters vs sub-editors" would also be inaccurate, because no-one would call Coren a reporter - he's a feature writer, reviewer or columnist…
Fair enough about Coren, for whom I might use the word writer, then.
And since we're talking generally as well, then perhaps the two sides of the divide are writer (if not reporter) vs sub-editor.
Sub-editors are journalists too, as are cameramen, editors, photographers etc etc -- most people in journalism in fact.
In the couple of years since this was first published, I've come to the conclusion that "journalist" is actually a very difficult and loaded word to use in any debate about, well, journalism. I've often found that people who say that are not journalists have a very specific definition in mind (usually reporters or newspaper journalists), and their argument breaks down when you bring in TV, radio, etc.
Fair enough, but sub-editors are hardly on the fringe, no matter what some reporters/writers may think. It shows with all the rubbish subbing on websites, newspapers and magazines -- mostly done, I suspect, by writers who think they can sub-edit copy.