- One editor. One person has the job of editing everything for a particular issue. The job can rotate from month to month, or it can remain with the same person. If your group has paid staff, one staffer might become editor. The editor would still show articles to other people to get their advice. Clear controversial articles with other leaders or an expert.
- An editor for each story. At the first planning meeting, assign each story an editor as well as a writer. This process might make articles less consistent, but it encourages a closer relationship between writer and editor. It gives everyone valuable experience without overloading one person.
- An editing meeting. Some publications hold a staff meeting the date articles are due. Everyone shows up early to read the stories and write comments. Edit for overall content, approach, and what to cut or expand at such a meeting; but avoid getting into details, or your meeting will turn into marathons. And people might get so carried away with their own ideas, they forget the writer has rights and feelings. / Editing at meetings maies sense only when your group is very close, persnaly and politically. Even then, assign individual editors to finish going over each article and work personally with each writer.
As we put Bulldog Bytes together, we opted for a combination of the first and second methods. With the benefit of hindsight, let's review that decision.
Background. I thought we made the right decision, based partly on my own experience and my suspicion from reading between the lines that Brigham had tried the third - group editing - and swore she'd never do that again. But with hindsight, I think we would have caught any misspelled bylines if we'd had a group process. If I were doing it again, I might try for some combination of all three of Brigham's methods. But that's what I think. I want to hear what you think.
So here's the question. How well did our editing process work? What worked? What didn't? What would you recommend to the next group of students in COMM 353 as they begin their class project? Post your preliminary, top-of-the-head thoughts as comments. And let's discuss.
2 comments:
Were all those typos intentional?
Regardless, I think having at least two people going over the same article helped greatly in the editing process. I am able to catch details, but I there are some things that are bound to go unnoticed still. Having a second or even a third person look over it helps greatly, and I think that's what works best.
Carol Saller also touches up on multiple editors working on one article/essay/paper of some kind. The teamwork can be trying, yes, but the more people who look for errors, the less likely those errors will show up on the published piece.
There was a disproportionate amount of work. This was the only real issue. Yet, in a way, it was a necessary evil. Future classes may benefit from sharing editorial burdens.
Post a Comment