The ‘eyes’ have it
Of the more than 400 respondents to the survey as of this evening, 55.2% favored two editors per story, 21.9% advocated three or more editors per story, 20.4% said a single editor was sufficient and a mere 2.5% said reporters didn’t need anyone looking over their shoulders. So, those favoring lots of “eyes” on a story handily carried the vote.
Anecdotally, the comments to the post below produced a general – and well founded – consensus that I am a lousy typist, as demonstrated by the frequent typos appearing herein. The suggestion that I hire a copy editor to safeguard my work, while thoughtful, is not going to be economically feasible, inasmuch as this is a volunteer undertaking and I am the only volunteer.
A fair number of reactions to the post cast me as an evil guy because I identified the obvious problem that newspapers bear awesomely higher production costs than the websites building substantial businesses by reusing their valuable content for free.
Take aim at the messenger if you like, but please understand that the staggering level of economic inequity is a real and indisputable problem threatening the long-term survival of newspapers as we know (and love) them. Those responding emotionally to my observations aren’t doing themselves, their colleagues or their readers any favors.
I share everyone’s commitment to quality journalism. But that’s not the issue.
The question is whether newspapers can afford to continue producing quality content in the traditional fashion at a time when sales, profits and the underlying business model are facing unprecedented and alarming challenges.
That’s what we ought be worried about, not my lousy typing.