A weblog for Pete Ellertsen's mass communications students at Benedictine University Springfield.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

COMM 353: Editing ... what worked? what didn't? How could we make it better?

In her handbook "How to Do Leaflets, Newsletters & Newspapers," Nancy Brigham suggest three ways of doing the editing piece for a publication (121-22). Quoted verbatim (but with citations omitted), they are:
  • 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:

Robyn said...

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.

irdubbz said...

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.

Blog Archive

About Me

Springfield (Ill.), United States
I'm a retired English, journalism and cultural studies teacher at Springfield College in Illinois (acquired by Benedictine University and subsequently closed). I coordinate jam sessions for the "Clayville Pioneer Academy of Music" at Clayville Historic Site and the Prairieland Strings dulcimer club, and I sing in the choir and the contemporary praise team at Peace Lutheran Church in Springfield. On Hogfiddle I post links and video clips for our sessions and workshops on the mountain dulcimer (a.k.a. "hog fiddle"), as well as research notes on folklore and cultural studies, hymnody and traditional Anglo-Celtic and Scandinavian music. I also posted assignments and readings in my interdisciplinary humanities classes. The Mackerel Wrapper (now on hiatus), carried assignments and readings for my mass comm. students. I started teaching b/log when I chaired SCI-Benedictine's assessment committee, and reopened it as the privatization of public schools grew increasingly troubling and closer to home.