At my last newspaper of employment, the designers were good at their jobs and could put a fine movie-review promo together when told to. I doubt any of them would do so on their own. The selection and play of 1A stories falls to news editors, managing editors, whatever the job title is. Maybe things were different where Nancy worked, but I doubt it.

Copy editors (and reporters, and all news workers) aren’t going to secure their future by picking senseless fights like that.

I’m all in favor of simplifying the process. The current system is obviously not going to work much longer. There aren’t going to be enough people in the newsroom to let it work much longer. Why hasn’t someone created an AP style check? You know, similar to spell check? (Or maybe someone has and I’ve missed it?) I know there are a lot of things that a computer can’t pick up on. But a little scripting, and it would know the difference between “3-year-old,” “3 years old” and “three cookies.” Technology should be making all of our jobs easier.

If I ran a newspaper I would cut down the number of people who see most stories. But, except in cases of extreme deadline crunch, there would always, always be three. Writer. Supervising editor. Copy editor. And all three would be held equally responsible for any mistakes. I think there are often times when a reporter doesn’t proof carefully, knowing that an editor and copy editor will do so. Then the overworked editor doesn’t read carefully, knowing the writer is good and the copy editor is careful. And the copy editor is overwhelmed and says, good writer, good editor, ship it.

It’s the “equal responsibility” part that is key, I think. The shit can’t all run downhill.

Don’t get me wrong — I’ve seen plenty of bad copy, and it annoys the heck out of me, too. I also don’t disagree that some reporters too often think “that’s the desk’s job.” But I would put more of the blame on a newsroom structure that has allowed that mindset to prevail for too long, rather than on reporters’ talent and drive.

That newsroom structure is built on the luxury of having enough bodies that reporters can get away with leaving too much for editors to clean up. And that’s a structure that’s probably no longer tenable for most papers (or soon won’t be, the way things are going) — which is what inspired Alan Mutter’s post in the first place.

You’re right — for the industry to recover, everyone’s job definition has to change, attitudes have to change, standards have to change. Good luck accomplishing that in a downsizing newsroom, which doesn’t inspire boldness in most people. A solid decade of non-stop lying from the front offices doesn’t help; publishers have been crying wolf over 22 percent profit margins for so long, it’ll be hard to convince the staff they’re serious now, that the ship really is taking on more water than we can bail, and no more lifeboats until everyone grabs a bucket.

I think I’m going to stop writing about newspapers, anyway — it’s been three years since I walked out of my last newsroom, and it’s plain my expertise is dated.