« A Grammar Nazi's fate | Main | The Fat Man chuckles »

The cattle

David Sullivan’s excellent blog, That’s the Press, Baby — you really ought to devote some serious time to exploring it if you aren’t already well acquainted with it — has a recent post on that Internet novelty, material published without editing.

He quotes Roy Greenslade of the Guardian and other British papers: "I write my blog every day, I don't need a sub to get in the way. “ And “I produce copy that goes straight on screen — why can't anyone else do that? You can eliminate a whole structure.”

Thinking about it, I realized that the Internet is not so novel, because we have seen the type many times before: the sacred monster. The reporter who thinks that editors get in the way. The columnist who demands an accounting of every keystroke in the editing. The star whose work comes to the desk with the understanding that it may not be questioned.

Some years ago I was the copy editor for a major article for the Sunday editions, written by an expensively acquired reporter of note. About a quarter of the way into the text there was a paragraph of such stunning opacity that I knew it would be one of those stumbling blocks to bring a reader to a dead stop. I suggested a minor restructuring and rewording.

The assigning editor tended to agree, but the writer was a star, and a summit meeting had to be convened in the conference room with the reporter, the assigning editor, a couple of other miscellaneous editors, and me. I went in and made my suggestion in a mild and low-key a manner; the reporter glared across the table at me in mute hostility. The outcome: The story was to run as written, with a tacit understanding that no more questions were to be raised or suggestions offered.

After the story ran, I asked a few readers — civilians — what they thought of it. They had come to that precise paragraph and read no further.

You can be sure when you hear that a publication is “a writer’s paper” that you will find there more sacred cattle than roam the streets of Benares. That herd has been around forever. And now the Internet has become their natural habitat. The sloppily reported story, the overlong and badly organized story, the self-indulgent prose excesses are all there, and increasingly in the print versions, too, as those meddling copy editors are turned out to pasture.

There is, of course, first-rate reporting and writing to be found. And you, dear reader, can squat at the waterside and pan the dross yourself for the occasional nugget.


Coming tomorrow: Part 3 of the Grammarnoir serial



Posted by John McIntyre at 8:48 AM | | Comments (6)


I think part of this fascination with and desire for raw, unedited writing, and its acceptance, is the ephemeral nature of blogs. How many times have you gone back to read or reread a blog entry more than a few weeks old? Contrast that with newspaper archives which are regularly mined for data and information on how we lived and the events that "alter and illuminate our times" decades and even centuries ago.

Great point, RiE. If I might expand upon it by way of example, about a year - or a little more - ago, when I first started reading the Sun blogs, a blog belonging to a columnist was notorious for postings that quoted "facts" that disappeared entirely when proven wrong by commenters.

Perhaps, the blogs that we are not re-reading are editing themselves with the gift of hindsight?

I've had a blog for a couple of years with a small but steady readership. I've always wished I had an editor because that would allow me to focus a bit more on content rather than worrying quite so much about style and grammar.

A good editor is a valuable asset.

An article in today's Baltimore Sun shows what can happen when a well-known internet site blindly picks up a prank video and endorses it as real. The reporter would have been fired for the prank alone, but the the way it raced around the Net shows how hard it is to know what is true by just listening to Internet pundits.

Interesting that over on the TV blog there in a (very) slow discussion of blog editing/fact checking/etc in reference to the huffpo (as they're calling The Huffington Post - how cool am I that I know the lingo?) and WBAL's fired reporter.

I cringe knowingly reading this and remember things you've said at ACES about capitulating to the one (writer) to the detriment of the many (readers). Great post.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About John McIntyre
John McIntyre, mild-mannered editor for a great metropolitan newspaper, has fussed over writers’ work, to sporadic expressions of gratitude, for thirty years. He is The Sun’s night content production manager and former head of its copy desk. He also teaches editing at Loyola University Maryland. A former president of the American Copy Editors Society, a native of Kentucky, a graduate of Michigan State and Syracuse, and a moderate prescriptivist, he writes about language, journalism, and arbitrarily chosen topics. If you are inspired by a spirit of contradiction, comment on the posts or write to him at
Baltimore Sun Facebook page

Most Recent Comments
Sign up for FREE local news alerts
Get free Sun alerts sent to your mobile phone.*
Get free Baltimore Sun mobile alerts
Sign up for local news text alerts

Returning user? Update preferences.
Sign up for more Sun text alerts
*Standard message and data rates apply. Click here for Frequently Asked Questions.
Stay connected