One of the differences between the web and print media is that the web can be used for interactive, real-time experiences that have more in common with a live event such as a conference or a group discussion than with publishing.
So, as I frequently tell our journalists, when deciding how to behave, it is often useful to ask the question: "what would we do if this were really a live event, with the audience in the same room as the journalists?" The implications go far wider than simply whether or not to sub.
And that's the concept that's most often missed in discussions about subbing for the web. Much of the content that goes onto the web isn't a finished product, but a live object, that will be developed, commented on and linked to. And rethinking subbing for the web will have to take that into account. How do you add value as a sub, to something that continues to change after it's published?
| Tweet |
|
If speed's one of the essential criterias of success, as it is online, a sub or digital desk could add value by tidying up copy written on a mobile phone, by adding links and context (more here etc), making the titles more SEO-friendly, adding captions, tagging, merging copy coming in from different sources etc.
I've worked for both the online equivalent of what you'd in print call a subs paper and a writers paper, and both were frustrating experiences. At the former, all copy was held up for ages (we're talking online here, speed....) as everything had to be "desked" and published by the subs, and your were frowned upon if you put links in the text as it gave the subs extra work.
At the opposite end I've also worked for a site where the editor expected everything to be pitch perfect and ready to publish when delivered - if it wasn't he'd go over it with red marks and often send it back. This didn't work either of course, as speed again is of the essence - so we'd loose stories to competitors. It would've been better just to publish immediately, and then correct - as the latter site's CMS would allow us to do that easily.
Still, in my experience, no matter how good their grammar etc. journalists tend to be lousy at subbing their own copy. I certainly am: I've done my share of subbing and copy-editing in my professional life, but I remain rather bad at doing that job as seamlessly for myself as I do it for others - especially when speed is essential. So I tend to lean towards the conclusion that we still need subs, but their role will be very different - they need to be experts not only on grammar, but SEO, tagging, coding, searhing etc
I broadly agree with Kristine on this one, and as a sub I'm increasingly spending my time optimising headlines, tagging stories (or checking tagging), adding links (or again, checking them) and doing a million other things.
It's worth remembering that speed isn't always the most important factor: isn't there a saying along the lines of 'being found is more important than being first'?
And I would add that 'publish first and then correct' carries its own dangers, not least from a legal point of view.
As for the concept of a 'live event': yes, good point. But with any live event, a journalist should (in my opinion) prepare fully beforehand, act professionally during, and capitalise greatly afterwards. How can a sub help that happen?
A sub's role isn't just to polish an otherwise finished product, but to ensure quality control generally.
Right, pontification over! Thanks for listening!