No-subs papers: might the union be partly to blame?
It is a travesty that non-journalists are doing our job (Who needs subs? May/June 2008). But since the NUJ has chosen not to support the “professionalisation” of our industry who can we blame for this worrying trend?
Journalism is a pillar of democratic society yet we choose not to protect it. We don’t insist that a journalist has any training or education — so why would an employer?
Architects, solicitors and accountants, for example, are equally vital to society yet their representative bodies insist on defined levels of education and continual professional development.
Readers may have noticed these professionals don’t struggle to maintain decent pay and conditions.
Anyone can claim to be a journalist. We must show media bosses why they cannot, or else the journalist and non-journalist will remain indistinguishable to media employers.
Roger Brownlie
Dublin
Having just celebrated 50 years in journalism, I was dismayed to read that Archant Suffolk believe they can do without subs and have pages put together by advertisement designers.
When I was a trainee, experienced subs taught me to write clear, concise copy. As my career progressed diligent subs saved me from fates ranging all the way from writing sloppy grammar to libel. When I became a sub I tried to do the same for my reporter colleagues.
Later, as an editor, I always insisted that my copy was treated the same as everyone else’s by the subs on the basis that, although editors may think they are gods, they are, in reality, fallible human beings.
Let us all be honest: although we all think we write brilliant copy, our work always benefits from a second opinion. Let’s hope the Archant management see the error of their ways before they are hit by the inevitable, expensive libel litigation.
Mike George
Portgordon, Scotland
Who needs subs?
… everybody
My copy of Journalist is still on my desk, having received several quick flick-throughs in the last week or so. Got as far as page 13, to the article, “Who needs subs?”
Very interesting I thought, another publication, not only getting rid of staff paid a pittance of a wage, but then publishing all sorts of nonsense that’s poorly edited. Terrible. And three cheers for Journalist for standing up for them.
Well. On to page 21. A nice article about Alan Johnston. Apparently he had a radio given to him buy his Army of Islam Kidnappers!
I’d expect better from The Journalist. There’s a great deal of irony in making a fuss about the lack of subbing on page 13, and then going on to actually publish a poorly subbed article on page 21.
In a journalists’ magazine written by journalists, one would assume a higher level of retentiveness. Perhaps we could by (sic) the Editor some spellcheck software.
Hannah Bannerman
Southampton
But the spellcheck wouldn’t have found the literal, would it, Hannah? Thanks to other members who also wrote drawing attention to it.
Editor
We need fewer slips, more ads
I noticed the call for retention of subs’ jobs (May/June 2008) and wondered if the Journalist’s subs had taken the afternoon off when I read on page 24 of the same issue “… Peter Murray said the three pillars or trade union wisdom …”
Notwithstanding that, and other slips, I agree that the printed Journalist is far more likely to be read by journalists who have spent their working day (like me) glaring at computer screens.
I did not receive the previous month’s web issue because I was not alerted to scratch around on the web to find it. If I had located it, it would have been yet another part of the ever-flowing daily news-feed and press release flood.
To retain its valued printed form, may I suggest that the advertising-to-editorial ratio gets overhauled? The May/June issue of 32 pages carried just two pages of paid advertising. Such a ratio would make any commercial publication go bust in months — or sooner.
William Paterson
Dunlavin, County Wicklow