The Americans call them copy editors; the English and Antipodeans call them sub-editors. Whatever you call them, they are traditionally the most under-valued and under-appreciated people in journalism. And with Fairfax’s latest bout of self-mutilation, they take one step closer to extinction.

“We get all of the blame when things go wrong and none of the credit when good things happen.” That frequently heard occupational grievance – heard so often in pub conversations between co-workers – could have been invented for sub-editors. These journalists – and let there be no mistake: sub-editors ARE journalists – are the real craftspeople of newspapers and wire services.

Subs are the perennially eagle-eyed people who spot the monumental f**k-ups in the making – misattributed quotes, the absence of a little word (like ‘not’ – as in ‘The Prime Minister said the ALP was not on the ropes), the mistaking of one person for another (‘Former RBA governor Ian Macfarlane blasts the government’s budget’….don’t you mean the OTHER Ian Macfarlane?), potentially defamatory claims (‘Dr Hawkins, a known associate of underworld figure Clams Maloney..’ – err, maybe he really is only his doctor) and all the silly little mistakes that appear in reporters’ copy; mistakes that – if not corrected – gradually erode the trustworthiness of a media outlet’s brand. And it is trust, more than anything, that makes a media brand valuable.

But aside from correcting copy and saving a newspaper from embarrassment and multi-million dollar lawsuits, the best subs can also make the copy shine or least make it readable. Inelegant and clumsy grammar, jarring segues, cheesy leads, buried context, inappropriate or heavy-handed use of metaphor – all can be, and regularly are, purged from the raw material and honed into something that is a joy to read. Well, that’s what sub-editors traditionally did (aside from eating bad food at their desks at ungodly hours). On top of all that, they wrote headlines that said ‘read me’ and captions that provided the missing information. When mistakes were made, the subs always got the blame. And when it all went right, who do you think received the kudos?

When you watch a movie, you don’t see the script-writers and editors and story-boarders. You see the stars. And reporters in the last decade or so have become the stars of journalism. Their job is to dig up the information and get the interviews and write it all up in time for deadline. Well, that’s the theory. The reality is that 90 per cent of the time these days, reporters are assigned to “event news”. These are staged and pre-fabricated set-pieces – usually put together by a PR firm or paid flak – with ready-to-wear quotes and an appropriate visual.  Of course, you could go and find your own news – something to distinguish you from the competition – ‘but here’s something we’ve prepared earlier’. Too easy.

This leaves reporters with the onerous task of cutting and pasting from an electronic media release, folding in a bit of wire copy to pad out the missing detail and context and sticking their names on the top. Always the names on the top – the most important part, after all, even for a six-par story. Talk to a harried sub-editor and they’ll tell you that many reporters can’t even get that right. So the subs – at least the good ones – go online themselves and check the facts and search the archives for the context and start to realise that the entire news “event” is not news at all, but a publicity stunt. Too late, though. The hole must be filled to keep the ads apart.

But this is where the failing economics of the media comes into the story, because for the last decade or so newspapers have gradually been lowering the bar for sub-editors. At Fairfax, generations of the old grizzled, seen-it-all subs have gone – to be replaced by casuals and contractors who are told to do the minimum and shovel the copy through. These temps have no affiliation to the newspaper, are paid a pittance and know that  the consequence of tampering with the star reporters’ copy (and their egos) is not worth the aggravation. So the word goes out to keep your head down and just cut the story to length, put a headline on the top and run the spell check. Do your seven and a half hours and go home. More and more, newsrooms became like Blake’s Dark Satanic Mills, with drones pushing out widgets at the lowest possible cost and bugger the quality.

This is why Fairfax now has decided that it may as well just contract out the sub-editing to an even more lowly paid workforce at Pagemasters. It’s probably inevitable given the dire circumstances of the mainstream media. But to say that this equates to investing in “quality journalism” is just a crock. The best journalism often results when a hungry, never-say-never and ultra quizzical reporter is matched with a wordsmith of a sub-editor. You very rarely get all the skills in one person.  Like a movie, it’s a team effort – a news editor with great instincts, a section editor with great contacts, a reporter with enormous energy and chutzpah and a sub-editor who adds the gloss and the flair. Throw in the visual elements – graphics and photography and design – and that’s how newspapers are made.

To be more correct, that’s how newspapers WERE made. It’s not economical to make them that way any more. And that’s fine if the public wants to live with the consequences of that. (I’ll give you a hint: Without proper sub-editors – particularly for the marque reporters who can’t actually write – newspapers’ output will resemble “Stars Without Makeup”. You’ll see all the bad lines).

My own view is the newspapers should have seen this coming more than a decade ago. Back in the late 1990s they were all setting up online versions of the print edition and furnishing tiny work spaces in the corners of their newsrooms where the emerging digital natives lived. But it never progressed beyond there. With ink in their fingernails, the old hands could not (or would not) imagine a digital-only future.

Some of us warned them. We said it would make more sense to go completely digital – after all the biggest costs are printing and distribution. That way the money could be invested in multi-media teams that developed digital apps built around specific sections of the old one-size-fits-all newspaper.

We’ve known this for years. But now, it’s too late. And so, as the sun sets on newspapers, we say goodbye to our old friends, the sbu-etdors, the stu-botieds, the sub-editors.

(PS: If you don’t want to take my word for it, read the experiences of another old sub, former Melbourne Age night Jonathon Green, writing on The Drum – Subless Fairfax is a Fast-Sinking Ship.
Also see Who Cares About Sub-Editors by Mel Campbell on New Matilda)


11 Comments

Anonymous · May 6, 2011 at 3:32 AM

Um. Word missing here:

Talk to a harried sub-editor and they'll you that many reporters can't even get that right.

Mr D · May 6, 2011 at 3:38 AM

Thanks anonymous. that's because i don't have a sub.

Anonymous · May 6, 2011 at 3:38 AM

Thank you for spelling out the situation so eloquently and capturing how newspapers deserve to be made.

Pip · May 6, 2011 at 5:24 AM

The reality is that 90 per cent of the time these days, reporters are assigned to “event news”. These are staged and pre-fabricated set-pieces – usually put together by a PR firm or paid flak – with ready-to-wear quotes and an appropriate visual. Of course, you could go and find your own news – something to distinguish you from the competition – 'but here's something we've prepared earlier'. Too easy

A current example of this is the images of Tony Abbott appearing to answer questions to no-one in particular, in his many reports as he progresses on his tour of the country.

ernmalleyscat · May 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM

I think many of the bad aspects of current print news media are the fault of bad sub-editing eg. misleading and sensationalist headlines and buried clarifying information.
This may be caused by pressure from editors to follow the house line, but it's still a problem which possibly may improve through outsourcing.
Also (nitpick alert here Mr Denmore) subs fix up incorrect uses of hyphens for em dashes and multiple full stops for ellipses.

Anonymous · May 7, 2011 at 12:30 AM

At last someone has spelt out to laymen like myself what sub-editors actually do. It's pretty much as I thought but good to have it confirmed.

And you've explained why these days so many headlines leading to the story are either bad grammar or just don't make sense.I'm talking about online mainly, where it must be just so rushed that absolute rubbish is uploaded.

And if it's going to get worse then Fairfax and co won't get many people subscribing if they erect pay-walls.

We need more sites like this.

Steve Panozzo · May 7, 2011 at 6:00 AM

Hey Pip!

“A current example of this is the images of Tony Abbott…” I'm sure you meant to write “are the images”, but the current trend is to ignore “are” altogether.

Witness “there's hundreds”, “there's lots of them”, etc. – similar collquial errors are all very commonplace (especially on-air) and promoted by a medium that should recognise it's duty of care. By broadcasting literally suspect messages, media outlets reinforce the erosion of what they are obliged to regard as sacrosanct.

Channel Nine promoted their Sydney Footy Show a couple of years ago with the tag line: “The Team are Back”. 2GB's “Continuous Call Team” are apparently celebrating their “25 Year Anniversary”. What worries me is that there are people reading this who don't see anything wrong with those two tags – and they slipped past every level of management, the voice-over artists, programme directors and went straight to air.

Cecily · May 7, 2011 at 8:08 AM

I regularly notice poor grammar and incorrect word usage in broadcast, print and online news… am constantly rolling my eyes and muttering to my husband about it. Now it sounds like it will only get worse. Sigh.

Doug · May 8, 2011 at 4:22 AM

“…promoted by a medium that should recognise it's duty of care.”
Sorry to be a pedant Steve Panozzo, but it's “its” unless it's an abbreviation.

Anonymous · May 15, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Steve Panozzo – “A current example … are” does not sound correct to me.

Anonymous · May 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Channel Seven are promoting one of their talent shows at the moment in an on-air promo featuring “Ronin” Keating. Oh come on. His voice may be a weapon but he's no samurai.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *