By Ranjona Banerji
All journalists are not reporters. I did try an experiment a few times, when I had the “power” and authority. I started as a sub-editor and a few years later argued vociferously (I enjoy arguing) with my boss when he suggested I make a change, that subbing was my life. As it happened, I did switch to working on articles. Not “reporting” because that is a specific skill, but more generalised features. A wise move. I had had my fill of dreaming night after night of those squiggles that were our subbing instructions.
There is no doubt that my years as a sub-editor in magazines remained that foundation of my journalism and gave me invaluable “skills” – to use a fashionable word” – and insight into writing. After you’ve spent years rewriting, sometimes from scratch, other people’s copy, you get a knack of what an article should read like, and how a news report cannot sound like a lifestyle feature and so on.
Subbing is not just about correcting words and sentences or about grammar either. It’s also about the organisation of information so that your reader gets both clarity and depth. And in magazines, the word length could be anything from 1000 to 5000 words! So there’s a lot of chop, chop, chop! The amount of typewriter ribbon, carbon paper and woman hours wasted and spent!! Some magazines like TIME require a rewrite of everything to fit their style, which has included – do they still do it? – turning sentences back to front like a Hollywood caricature of how the Irish speak.
This may well mean that nothing you read was part of the original copy submitted by the writer. The subeditor is a powerful entity. Quiet, behind the scenes, effective, sometimes brutal, and unsung. A good subeditor can make a story and a team of good subs makes a publication. Very often bylines get blamed by their readers for headlines, blurbs, intros and so on when in reality they have nothing to do with any of those. Often only important people in a newsroom get a playback. Most writers find out the next morning or week or month what a travesty or glory has been made of their copy.
To get back. The experiment was to get reporters and subeditors to switch places for a while. So that both could understand each other’s jobs and what they entailed. Both grumble incessantly about each other. Both claim that if the other did a proper job their own lives would be easier.
Sadly, my experiment was not a total success. Some people have a specific set of talents which make them incredibly good at one job and not another. Some are able to jump between with no great damage. But at least it gave – or so I console myself – people a chance to live life on both sides. It also helps in times of crisis when it’s all hands on deck. A bit of a varied experience helps.
The introduction of computers made lives easier in many ways. But one big loss is that it forced many subeditors to become page-makers – more to do with accountants running newsrooms than anything else. For those who had well-honed language and correction skills, to have to think visually was a disaster. And it also affected the quality of subbing. We also lost the enormous talents of page makers, who were trained artists. Newsrooms retained a few page-makers but not as many as they should have. It shows. A portion of what was lost then in terms of quality has never been regained.
So next time you read anything, spare a thought for the subeditor. And next time you watch rubbish on your screens or read rubbish in your journal, remember, this is a media organisation which has scrimped on its most basic and fundamental component. The Sub-Editor.
Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She is also Consulting Editor, MxMIndia. Her views here are personal