Tonight:
5°c
Destined for the spike - sub-editors will struggle to survive in digital age
Roy Greenslade2 Jul 2008
My overriding ambition as a cub reporter in the mid-1960s was to become a Fleet Street journalist. For reasons I now forget I became convinced that the quickest way to get there was to become a sub-editor, a supposedly unglamorous backroom job that often led on popular newspapers to the editor's chair.
The pop press revolved around the skills of subs. Though they didn't have their names in the paper, they wielded enormous unseen power over what was published. They rewrote and cut reporters' copy. They sorted out the legal problems. They put reporters under pressure with queries about their stories. Most importantly, they were the creators of memorable headlines.
I was proud to join their number and I can still recall my first Fleet Street night in 1969 sitting among men - yes, all men in those days - with rolled-up shirtsleeves tearing furiously at screeds of paper, spiking unwanted wire copy with one hand and brandishing a paste brush in the other. There were no green eye shades by then, but that image best conjures up memories of us desk-bound hacks in the days of hot metal.
Needless to say, the relationship between the people who originated the material - the news reporters, feature writers and assorted columnists - and us subs was often less than cordial. Within offices there was somewhat of a demarcation line between the two camps.
The separation of functions persisted once papers adopted computer technology in the mid-1980s. Though several unnecessary barriers between the reporters and their published stories instantly disappeared with the removal of linotype operators, compositors, block makers and their sundry printing cronies, the internal journalistic split remained, as it does in most newspaper offices today.
But this final frontier is beginning to crumble. The London-based business freesheet City AM announced this week that it is planning to dispense with the services of its eight sub-editors. That is far from a rogue decision. It chimes with the view of David Montgomery, a former national paper sub who now runs Mecom, a company that publishes 300 titles in five European countries. He told a House of Lords committee in March that "the age of the sub-editor" was over. In the digital era, he said, such skills have been made redundant because journalists - meaning reporters and writers - can now transmit their material ready for instantaneous publication, cut to length and sensibly headlined.
Montgomery, who never courts popularity, also spoke of subs performing "humdrum tasks". That was deliberately provocative, of course, but it did not negate his substantive point. Is it time to cut out the middle man (and middle woman) and let writing journalists do the honours instead?
That may work well enough when writing for websites but, at a practical level, it doesn't appear likely to occur in the newsprint versions of most national papers, both popular and serious.
Casting headlines (in common parlance, making them fit) can take time, not to mention skill. However, some regional papers and freesheets employ designs that are no more than templates and there is no reason why writers-could not do the job.
Lawson Muncaster, City AM's managing director, says: "Having looked at how things work on the Continent, and drawing on my experience at Metro International, I believe the sub-editing function is obsolete. I believe writers can take responsibility for filing copy that is readable and correct with a headline. That's why we're going through the process [of letting subs go]."
On the other hand, his paper has hired more page designers, and they are sure to play a crucial role in easing the sub-editorial tasks for writers.
All written work, whether it be a novel, a poem or a news story, often benefits from a second, even third, eye. But the removal of subs doesn't mean that copy will be published unread. Executive editors will still act as quality controllers.
I doubt that this radical step will happen overnight. Indeed, I think there will be a lengthy transition phase which is likely to involve some form of outsourcing.
The Irish-based Independent News & Media, owner of The Independent in England, has pioneered the outsourcing of sub-editorial work at both its Irish and New Zealand titles. Its chief executive, Tony O'Reilly, believes all newspaper-production can be both centralised and outsourced.
Several American papers appear to be on the verge of taking a similar route. This week marks the start of a monthlong trial by a daily paper in California, the Orange County Register, which will see an Indian company assuming some of its copy-editing duties. The same firm, Mindworks Global Media, will also be responsible for designing one of the Register group's community papers.
Another Indian company, Express KCS, is now designing newspaper adverts and producing the finished copy for more than 300 US titles. It does the same for some British papers too, such as the Brighton Argus. Two years ago it was employing 20 people. Now it has 450 employees with a starting salary of just £250 a month.
Though the business is located outside New Delhi, its chief executive, Robert Berkeley, works from Britain and his ambition is clearly to move on from advertising to editorial. It has already carried out trials by producing editorial page connected to advertising, known as advertorial. "Obviously, reporting cannot be outsourced," he says. "But copy editing is no problem. It can be accomplished efficiently by our staff. There is no language problem."
It's lucky subs no longer use spikes or I rather fancy this news would lead one or two to impale themselves.
Reader views (10)
If Sub-editing is a full time job, how are journalists going to cope? If Journos are subbing, who is going to be reporting? They'll just have to employ more reporters who'll be producing 50% less than they are now. It'll be outsourced rather than journalists completing the job themselves. Both and unfortunate sign of the times.
- Anon, England, 26/07/2009 21:41
Report abuse
Richard Dean, I am sure that in theory many writers can sub, lay out pages and write headlines. Or perhaps I should say, they ought to be able to, but I suspect many suffer from delusions of grandeur.
As a writer you won't appreciate (or, most likely, accept) this, but are you aware of how many reporters, feature writers and columnists there are out there - even on national newspapers, where a degree of competence is assumed - who are unable to spell, punctuate, construct sentences correctly, get their facts in the right order, or indeed, even get them right in the first place?
If I had a pound for every time I've picked up a poorly written, incomprehensible story by someone who claims to be a professional writer, I would be rich; indeed, I could well afford to become a redundant sub-editor!
We are the unsung heroes who make incompetent and barely literate writers look much better than they are, and we don't even get any thanks, let alone a byline.
As one respondent pointed out earlier, I very much look forward to reading newspapers which don't use sub-editors - it will be hilarious.
- Julie Johnson, London, England, 07/12/2008 21:23
Report abuse
Well, Paul, what the mistakes in my piece illustrate is that, even with subs, errors occur. So your point is?
- Roy Greenslade, Brighton, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
I can't see how getting rid of subs could possibly a good idea, even online.
reporters are notoriously pushed for time, more so in this age of online media convergence where they are asked to publish at all stages of their work flow.
In this environment mistakes are bound to creep in, and executive editors are surely too busy with actually being executives to undertake mundane fact checking and rewriting for clarity.
I actually think there's more call for subs than ever...
- Damien, London, UK (where else?), 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
Find me one journalist who can't name at least one occasion where a sub has saved his or her bacon.
- Anne, Bath, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
The number of (admittedly small) errors in Roy's piece alone demonstrates the need for some degree of subbing, whether online or in print.
- Paul Smith, London, UK, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
When all the subs are gone, the overall quality of most newspapers’ copy will be low - not all writers are as accomplished as, say, Giles Coren The Flawless. Hilarious, I can't wait to see the results!
- Lindsay Prior, Canberra, Australia, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
Just wondering: if media barons no longer have to pay sub-editors decent wages (not that they ever did), might they start paying the writers they continue to use what those multi-skilled scribes deserve?
Presumably, if writers can deliver perfect copy (and pithy, pertinent heads), they're worth more than the bulk of the writers most publications are using now.
As a journalist, author and perhaps-about-to-be-redundant sub, I'll be seeking greater remuneration for my (flawless, factchecked) written work from now on.
And hey, I'm happy to become one an 'outsourced' sub, helping the environment by working from home, so bring it on, media bosses.
You'll thereby be saving money on office space, PCs, stationery, phone calls, insurance, sick pay, superannuation contributions and perhaps even petty pilfering by having subs work from home - and if you want to keep an eye on us, there's always webcam.
Instead of paying Indian subs (have you read their newspapers lately?), why not hire GOOD local subs, pay them reasonable rates and let them work from home, thus saving you overheads?
- Merran White, Sydney, Australia, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
What happened to Adam Smith's pin factory?
Yes, we reporters/feature writers can also sub and write headlines. We can, at a push, lay-out pages. And if called up, I'm sure we'd make a good fist of standing outside Liverpool Street station flogging newspapers. Ditto senior editors.
The point is, it's not efficient. Writers and editors add the most value to any publication (I'm biased, I am one). Why pay them top whack to carry out important but lower value jobs?
Mr Smith figured this out more than 200 years ago. In running a pin factory, it's more efficient when workers specialise - designers, smelters, metal cutters, polishers etc - than if everyone in the factory is a jack of all trades.
I don't know what Mr Greenslade gets paid to write his columns, but I suspect it's top dollar. There's no doubt that he could sub and lay out his own work; it'd take him a while and his fee would go through the roof, but he'd get it done.
Better to hire specialist subs who are better, faster and cheaper.
- Richard Dean, London, England, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
When all the subs have been sacked, I wonder who will save publishers from expensive and embarrassing libel and defamation suits caused by rushed, sloppy editing. Subs have the experience, nous and knack to spot and pull items that could cause difficulty. They question reporters on what they perceive to be possible misinterpretations of copy, they act as a barrier between the truth and the not-so-true on many occasions. They are not simply spell checkers... they are a vital quality control. But, as is the way with modern media, they are simply too expensive for penny-pinching, money-grubbing publishers -- not that they actually get paid a lot, no one does at the coalface of modern media any more. Tube drivers earn more than most subs... hell, street sweepers earn more than some on regional titles. But quality doesn't count for the like of Montgomery et al. Only cold, dirty cash.
I wonder if any of the non-subs out there could pick up the 10 errors/mistakes/areas of correction I've found in this article. Not as easy as you'd think.
- Michael Byrne, London, 07/12/2008 20:23
Report abuse
