Who's Gonna Edit?

According to a survey about magazine websites in the Columbia Journalism Review, 59 percent of magazine editors say there is no such thing as online copy editing.

And I'm not surprised. If you think about how much of a demand there is for instantaneous news, it's easy to see how editors can forget all about the copy editors. Because unfortunately, it's not the quality that counts. It's the quantity. And sacrifices have to be made to ensure that something is getting posted on a daily basis.

So what, if anything, can be done to keep the copy editors in business?

For one thing, online magazine editors should step up and acknowledge the fact that without proof reading, fact checking, and second readers, an online publication will lose valuable credibility. If errors are made consistently within articles, readers will shy away from the publication and go elsewhere for news. It might be a little melodramatic to say, but without the copy editors, the publication risks falling apart. Sure, the news would get up and out without them, but the quality and flawlessness in the writing may not be there. And with no quality, there's no credibility.
As long as editors realize this, the editing position will remain open.

But that doesn't solve HOW the editing can be conducted. Like I mentioned, the news media is a fast paced world. Sometimes there's no time for the copy editing and it's a whole lot easier to click that post button, trust what's been written is correct, and not even bother taking the copy to be edited. So what if the copy editor was brought even closer to the reporters?
What if they worked at the same time?
Writing and editing on the spot?
In direct communication as the writing is being conducted?
It might be tough for writers to adjust to and it's not like I really know the logistics of a news room or how the process works in real life. All I know is that if the time between finished article and proofreading is squeezed a bit, made closer together, the news may still be able to go out fast and accurately.

And well, let's face reality. The Internet is making people dumber. It's sad to say, but I almost expect things I read online to have a sort of error somewhere. I've learned to take what I read with a grain of salt. So there is some room for error online and since editing can be done at any time and be fixed without hassle, at the very worst, copy editors could be asked to read over already published material. But it shouldn't have to get that far.

Why can't copy editors be emailed with drafts of posts? Then they could look them over, make changes, and get the material out. Even though the medium has changed, why not stick to the tried and true? Editors will have to be comfortable enough to allow processing time and not expect fastest delivery. And there's nothing wrong with that. Fast news delivery is best left to Twitter and the people who know news best - the people.

Copy editors won't go anywhere as long as they are working for publications that respect credibility. They can still be vital legs of business as long as they are brought closer to reporters and, above all, recognized as essential for quality.