-

You’ll need deep pockets if you sack the subs Monty

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 1 November 2007 at 13:37
Tags: David Montgomery, Journalism, Sub editors

David Montgomery’s fast growing investment vehicle Mecom evidently has pots of cash judging by the speed it is buying up newspapers across Europe.

That money will come in handy for lawyers’ fees if the former Mirror chief executive carries on with his plans to do away with sub editors.

Somewhat carried away by his speech last night, I put my report of it straight up online without letting a colleague pass a second pair of eyes over it - as is the norm.

The result was a stray apostrophe in the headline and a misspelling of the name Weidenfeld (thanks Tony Berry and Michael Wren for pointing those out).

Press Gazette had a more serious dose of the consequences of such shoddy practice a few weeks ago when the word “payout” was used in the headline of a report of a fairly innocuous libel settlement.

An irate phone call from a libel lawyer ensued and it turned out the matter of money in the libel deal was confidential and he considered that to suggest otherwise was actionable.

It was an easy mistake to make and came about because the sort of experienced and trustworthy journalist Montgomery thinks does not need sub-editing put their work up straight away online without recourse to a sub-editor.

The speed with which stories need to be published online nowadays - and the plethora of extra libel risks that online publication entails - mean there is more need for sub editors now than ever before.

If established newspapers are to make the transformation to become successful online businesses the quality that good sub-editing ensures will be essential to help them rise above the unregulated clamour of the blogosphere.

Related:

• Media MPs’ move could end hounding
• PG subs refunds - No conspiracy, honest
• Murrer charge could be end of the line for crime reporting
• PRESS GAZETTE MAGAZINE: December issue preview

Tags: David Montgomery, Journalism, Sub editors

Comments

Add your own comment

1. Operation Brighton Daylight |  1 November 2007 at 3.37pm

   And a “miss-spelling” of the word misspelling.

   Also in the main report, it’s Mecom, not Mecon.

   Who needs subs, eh?

2. Randolph Hirst |  1 November 2007 at 4.15pm

   The truth of the matter is that Monty has always hated journalists and the fewer he can have around the better. Subs may be derided - perhaps not altogether unfairly - as the cardigan and slipper brigade but without them most media - printed or otherwise - would be in a pretty parlous state.

3. Grey Cardigan |  2 November 2007 at 9.08am

   The man’s a lunatic. I wouldn’t let some reporters near a colouring book, never mind a live page.

4. David White |  2 November 2007 at 12.06pm

   Who needs subs? Someone who writes: “An audience which mainly comprised of past and present members …”

   ‘Consisted of ‘ or just plain ‘comprised’.

5. Andy Bechtel |  2 November 2007 at 3.19pm

   The same conversation is happening here in America:

   http://www.copydesk.org/

6. Supersub |  2 November 2007 at 5.01pm

   He obviously doesn’t understand the way most newspapers work. Young, inexperienced journalists presenting their stories directly to the reader? It makes me shudder.

7. ladysub |  2 November 2007 at 5.40pm

   Most journalists can’t write, let alone spell, and very few have a handle on grammar. It is the subs team that turns poor copy into readable copy. Anyone who has even a glimmer of understanding about what a sub does knows it’s not all just fact checking and correcting apostrophes. From my experience of working on consumer magazines, the subs department is often combined with production, so the subs team is responsible for managing and chasing copy, getting the magazine out on time and a reasonable amount of the production. Getting rid of subs would be a disaster, and I can’t think of a single consumer magazine that would survive if subs were scrapped.

8. Nick Hart |  2 November 2007 at 6.40pm

   I often wonder why - and how - Montgomery ever found himself in journalism. With his razor-sharp intelect, acute grasp of reality and sound understanding of markets, wouldn’t he have been better of in banking - Northern Rock, for example?

9. Kerrie Alexander |  4 November 2007 at 2.19pm

   Couldn’t agree more with many of my former colleagues’ comments.
   What would happen if the key sub/subs departmentw as fired?
   Simple - it doesn’t take a genius to know that the following problem would arise: the whole editorial process goes to pot.
   Solution: Somebody else to take on the job of subbing/proofreading/production/chasing copy/ironing out anomalies, be they grammatical/practical/common sense/legal/compliance issues/generally liaising with everybody in the editorial department to ensure smooth and successful sign-off of copy.
   Conclusion: get back that sub/ those subs quick smart!

10. supersub |  5 November 2007 at 11.54pm

    On many papers the subs, especially design subs, also have the job of covering the inadequacies of desk editors, be they news, sport or features. A clever use of a headline, a snappy standfirst, a smart display and a search on the internet for a decent picture because your own pic desk has again failed to provide one and hey presto, you’ve got something which may just attract the reader’s attention. Polishing a t*rd, we call it.

11. Andy Bull&hellip |  8 November 2007 at 7.06pm

    a debate

12. Tony Durkin |  9 November 2007 at 12.38pm

    Good subbing isn’t just about headline writing and making copy fit, especially on regional papers. The importance of thorough local knowledge shouldn’t be under-estimated. Twenty years ago, if the reporter was a little short on such local knowledge, as in the peculiar spelling of a local street or district, or the exact whereabouts of a building, the newsdesk corrected his copy; if they failed to spot the mistake, the downtable sub changed it and if it got through that process, there was the chief or revise sub, with checks on the stone as an absolute failsafe. These days, that process has already been drastically reduced and, in my experience, more and more errors are creeping through. Very often, they are so basic as to be cringeworthy and make the paper a laughing stock in the eyes of the reader. The end result of that can only be falling sales.

13. geoff martin |  12 November 2007 at 2.06pm

    It’s just a tad worrying that most of the comments on this thread seem to be from experienced subs who obviously haven’t bothered to read the story.
    Monty referred specifically to ”experienced journalists that (sic) can be trusted”.
    That’s very different from saying that ”young, inexperienced journalists” (see Supersub’s comments) should be allowed to present their stories directly to the reader.
    I too have my reservations about Monty’s idea. Common sense dictates that it wouldn’t be appropriate in all circumstances, but at least let’s have a proper debate on what he actually said, as opposed to what people think he said.
    Subs getting the wrong end of the stick is a worse crime in my book than missing an errant apostrophe.

14. Supersub |  12 November 2007 at 4.12pm

    “Experienced journalists” trusted to upload directly? How many regional papers still have them? Hence my previous comments.

15. Richard Burton&hellip |  12 November 2007 at 7.53pm

    [...] you can dispense with subs and maintain any sort of professional credibilty at the same time. He’s come in for some criticism from subs who, rightly, shudder at the thought of some of the text-speak masquerading as copy going straight [...]

16. diodesign.co.uk | From th&hellip |  16 November 2007 at 11.11pm

    [...] subscribe for ages. They know me too well. PS: A classic Grey Cardigan response to Dom Ponsford’s post about copy going straight onto pages without being sub-edited: “I wouldn’t let some reporters near a colouring book, never mind a live [...]

17. Rachael Wood |  19 November 2007 at 6.33pm

    Whether it’s experienced journalists or those new to the game that he’s talking about it’s rubbish. I’ve worked in production journalism for (a mere) five years and every magazine I know goes into a blind panic when the chief sub goes off sick. As a few others have pointed out, subbing is not just spelling and apostrophes. When I asked what subbing was early into my NCTJ course my tutor told me it was being the legal front line and ensuring the mag got out on time, making sense and easy to read. If he thinks we’re unnecessary let’s see him try and run a mag without us.

18. brian pelan |  23 November 2007 at 1.26am

    I did not protest when they sacked the printers, I did not protest when they sacked the sub editors. Reporters can fill in the last part!!!

Leave a Comment