For the first section of this blog about the photos of the suicide of Dwyer, I personally would not print any of them. I think that things like this are meant to remain within the family of the victim. Some things don't need to go public. However, if I had no choice and had to print one, I'd go with the first (1a). I chose this because it is the least invasive. Furthermore, children that may see this picture will not be scarred from this one unlike 4a. I feel that 1a captures what is going on without getting too invasive. But again, I probably wouldn't print any of them.
As for the second section, all 5 pictures seem very invasive and should be kept private for the sake of the family members of those involved. I can see some gray area, however, with the 5th picture because the woman's face was censored for her identity. However, you still have to take into consideration the identities of the others involved in that action. Perhaps it's something they are not proud of and maybe were too intoxicated at Mardi Gras to make a good judgement. I still think that these photos convey very personal moments and people do not need or want their grief hashed out for public eye. I do not see any circumstances to show the drowned boy and his family or the boy mourning his dog to the public. Furthermore, it's quite gruesome to show the slain worker to the public for fear a child would see it and not respond well.
If these photos were local, you'd run the risk that someone who knew the victim had to find out about his/her death in a photo, rather than an obituary or another proper way. That can cause a lot of turmoil in someone's life.
The one photo that gets me the most is the last one. Yes, her identity is concealed, but it is still an invasive picture that displays much of her body. Also, while what everyone else is doing is quite wrong and they should know better, they may not want their identities displayed in such a photo either. You have to think about everyone involved in the photo and how it would affect each life attached. You also need to think about how necessary it is for this photo to be printed for the sake of the public. Perhaps it is better to use words to describe what happened than just throwing it out there for every eye to gaze at.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Seven Deadly Sins of Copy Editing
After doing a Google search on the term copy editing, I found a decent Poynter article that sums up the roots of the most common errors made by copy editors. It's called The Seven Deadly Copy Editing Sins. In no particular order, those sins are:
1. Arrogance
2. Assumptions
3. Sloppiness
4. Indifference
5. Ignorance
6. Laziness
7. Inflexibility
I found numbers 6 and 7 most interesting. For number 6, I agree completely. It's hard to put in a full effort while copy editing when it's late at night and all you want to do is go home. I've fought that myself at the DI. And it is one of the worst things you can do. I put an article through that had the word "millennium" in the headline, but I let it go with just one "n." Luckily, the slotter caught it and fixed it. The real kicker is that I interned for a company all summer called Millennium Electronics Inc. I should have known that, but I was tired and missed it. And that's a big problem.
Number 7 I don't agree with. The way the article lays it out, they explain this as not being able to rearrange a page. Which, at the DI, I see quite frequently, even close to deadline. However, sometimes copy editors are too flexible, when they over correct articles and inadvertently add errors. They may have too much flexibility with headlines. For instance, we have access to font sizes as copy editors and we can fudge that to make a headline fit if we really want. The downfall is that it messes with the work the design table put into the article and ends up reading great, but looking funny. Sometimes, for copy editors, a little inflexibility never hurt.
1. Arrogance
2. Assumptions
3. Sloppiness
4. Indifference
5. Ignorance
6. Laziness
7. Inflexibility
I found numbers 6 and 7 most interesting. For number 6, I agree completely. It's hard to put in a full effort while copy editing when it's late at night and all you want to do is go home. I've fought that myself at the DI. And it is one of the worst things you can do. I put an article through that had the word "millennium" in the headline, but I let it go with just one "n." Luckily, the slotter caught it and fixed it. The real kicker is that I interned for a company all summer called Millennium Electronics Inc. I should have known that, but I was tired and missed it. And that's a big problem.
Number 7 I don't agree with. The way the article lays it out, they explain this as not being able to rearrange a page. Which, at the DI, I see quite frequently, even close to deadline. However, sometimes copy editors are too flexible, when they over correct articles and inadvertently add errors. They may have too much flexibility with headlines. For instance, we have access to font sizes as copy editors and we can fudge that to make a headline fit if we really want. The downfall is that it messes with the work the design table put into the article and ends up reading great, but looking funny. Sometimes, for copy editors, a little inflexibility never hurt.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The DI: It's not just the copy editors' faults
I wasn't sure if we were supposed to post a new blog or not, but I decided to write one anyway.
The other day I was sitting in class and a couple rows in front of me was a kid reading a copy of the Daily Illini. It happened to be Thursday morning, the day after I copy edit for the DI. I'm assuming he found a mistake because he said "damn copy editors" under his breath. I then took a little bit of offense.
I know we spend a decent chunk of each lab session picking apart the DI. And I'm lucky enough to not have to suffer through it on a paper that I worked on. However, when did it become the copy editors' job to catch everything? Do the writers not have know how to write to get published anymore?
You wouldn't believe some of the things I catch when I'm at work. We all fight over AP stories that come in because those have less errors. But when you've got an article from a staff writer, be prepared. I don't mean to be offensive. A lot of the staff writers are very good writers, but every once in awhile, there's an article so grammatically incorrect that it makes me want to cry.
Also, why does nobody blame the slotters? They're actually the ones with final say in an article. One thing I've noticed at the DI is that the slotters spend more time fixing our headlines than looking at the actual article. And quite frankly, more often than not, the headline the slotter uses to replace mine, I think is worse. But yet a lot of people don't even know what a slotter is, so the blame falls to the copy editor.
Yes, mistakes cover the DI all the time. I realize this. But I wish people would stop singling out one specific role at the DI. If you're going to work for the paper in any way, you need to know grammar, spelling and usage rules. I don't care if you're a designer, night editor, reporter, or copy editor. These are things you should know in your own field. Everyone should share the burden of a mistake.
The other day I was sitting in class and a couple rows in front of me was a kid reading a copy of the Daily Illini. It happened to be Thursday morning, the day after I copy edit for the DI. I'm assuming he found a mistake because he said "damn copy editors" under his breath. I then took a little bit of offense.
I know we spend a decent chunk of each lab session picking apart the DI. And I'm lucky enough to not have to suffer through it on a paper that I worked on. However, when did it become the copy editors' job to catch everything? Do the writers not have know how to write to get published anymore?
You wouldn't believe some of the things I catch when I'm at work. We all fight over AP stories that come in because those have less errors. But when you've got an article from a staff writer, be prepared. I don't mean to be offensive. A lot of the staff writers are very good writers, but every once in awhile, there's an article so grammatically incorrect that it makes me want to cry.
Also, why does nobody blame the slotters? They're actually the ones with final say in an article. One thing I've noticed at the DI is that the slotters spend more time fixing our headlines than looking at the actual article. And quite frankly, more often than not, the headline the slotter uses to replace mine, I think is worse. But yet a lot of people don't even know what a slotter is, so the blame falls to the copy editor.
Yes, mistakes cover the DI all the time. I realize this. But I wish people would stop singling out one specific role at the DI. If you're going to work for the paper in any way, you need to know grammar, spelling and usage rules. I don't care if you're a designer, night editor, reporter, or copy editor. These are things you should know in your own field. Everyone should share the burden of a mistake.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Regret the Error"
The Web site I was assigned to look through for this post is Regret The Error.
After scanning through, I found a list composed of "Plagiarism Round-ups" and "The Year in Media Errors and Corrections" dating back to 2004 and as recent as 2008. The media errors links offer a sarcastic tone on mistakes made in the previous year and the corrections to them. For example, President Obama was the target of many errors in 2007, even being referred to as "Osama" in the media.
Another aspect I found handy that I will probably refer to for other classes is the "Accuracy Checklist," located on the homepage of the site. It offers suggestions to improve your work while reporting such as asking the source to spell their name and recording interviews. Then it goes on to offer a list of specific things to look for while editing: numbers, names, titles, locations and definitions, to name a few.
I would suggest, if nothing else, looking at the Accuracy Checklist if you do reporting in any way. It may list obvious things that we should already know to look for, but wouldn't it be worse to miss one of those and make a huge mistake just for someone else to catch? I'd hate to see my name on "The Year in Media Errors and Corrections" link.
After scanning through, I found a list composed of "Plagiarism Round-ups" and "The Year in Media Errors and Corrections" dating back to 2004 and as recent as 2008. The media errors links offer a sarcastic tone on mistakes made in the previous year and the corrections to them. For example, President Obama was the target of many errors in 2007, even being referred to as "Osama" in the media.
Another aspect I found handy that I will probably refer to for other classes is the "Accuracy Checklist," located on the homepage of the site. It offers suggestions to improve your work while reporting such as asking the source to spell their name and recording interviews. Then it goes on to offer a list of specific things to look for while editing: numbers, names, titles, locations and definitions, to name a few.
I would suggest, if nothing else, looking at the Accuracy Checklist if you do reporting in any way. It may list obvious things that we should already know to look for, but wouldn't it be worse to miss one of those and make a huge mistake just for someone else to catch? I'd hate to see my name on "The Year in Media Errors and Corrections" link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)