Reviving the fine art of subbing

Stings and scoops may be exciting high points but good, sound editing is surely the bedrock on which media credibility and prestige rests.

Ammu Joseph

"Once in the hands of subs we can only pray!"
"You can't reform subs."
"The Press can be relied upon to apply the Procrustean principle to all contributors!"

These and similar responses to a recent instance of massacre by subbing in a leading English daily indicate the widespread lack of faith in the abilities and proclivities of sub-editors (a.k.a. copy editors) among those who have had close encounters with them. But reporters and writers are not the only ones who see that there is a major problem with editing in the Indian press today. Even lay readers can often be heard bemoaning the poor language - to say nothing of content - that now marks much of the print media, at least in English. So it may be worth trying to figure out what is going wrong where.

The relationship between writers/reporters and sub-editors has always been fraught. Having been on both sides of the editorial desk at various points in my career, I am well aware that many a reputable writer would be nowhere without the ministrations of a sensitive and skilled sub. I truly believe that subbing is an extremely important journalistic function and that a meticulous sub is an invaluable asset to any publication.

In fact, I have always regretted the traditional devaluation of "the desk" within the profession, which is sadly mirrored in media education. I also think it is unfortunate that those who perform such an essential and potentially creative task within the press receive so little recognition and appreciation even from colleagues. While television news has begun to credit technical team members, in the print media rank and file editors still remain anonymous and unsung. It is significant, I think, that the plethora of awards, fellowships and other opportunities for print journalists today focus almost exclusively on reporters and writers.

It could well be that this lack of acknowledgement leads to poor self-image and frustration among subs, which in turn is reflected in their work. A related problem may be that few opt for desk jobs because they really enjoy the challenges of editing and production. Instead, many seem to take to editing because they have no choice and/or because they prefer or are compelled to go for office-bound work with regular hours (albeit subject to shift timings in newspapers). With the glamour and rewards attached to reporting and writing, and the downgrading of copy editing even in J-schools, this is not surprising. But the ensuing disinterest and discontent can be quite damaging, especially in terms of quality of work.

However, other factors seem to be at play, too. There is little doubt that language proficiency is a rare quality today - certainly in English - even among those who have studied at elite schools and colleges. While poor language skills among reporters and writers can be camouflaged by skilful editing, no such safety net is available to sub-editors who are linguistically challenged. Language competence is an obvious prerequisite for good editing but, ideally, editors must also be interested in language and committed to the careful, correct use of it.

In the breaking news culture that prevails in much of the media today, little value appears to be attached to the kind of painstaking, time-consuming, detailed work that good subbing involves. Although computerisation has made the editing process far less laborious and protracted, the time and effort thus saved have clearly not translated into more smart and sensitive subbing.

To make matters worse, there seem to be few checks and balances to ensure that editing improves the quality of writing (if and where necessary) or, at least, does not make it worse. Interference with style is not the only issue here; distortion of meaning is a common, distressful occurrence. Senior editors seldom take complaints about editorial hacking seriously, even if factual and grammatical errors have been introduced and meanings altered, especially if the plaintiff is a freelancer (however accomplished and experienced). Instead, hackles raised, they often proceed to blacklist those who dare to point out deficiencies in their editorial systems. The resulting sense of invulnerability often intensifies the ill-founded arrogance and superciliousness of many "working journalists," particularly in dealings with their equally hard-working and professional but independent colleagues. No lessons are learnt and editorial slash-and-burn practices continue unabated.

Yet the importance of using language well is obviously still recognised across the world. Otherwise a book like "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" would not have become an international bestseller. And "Elements of Style" - which I first acquired in journalism school 30 years ago - would not be still going strong, its new editions continuing to find a place in the survival kit recommended to students in prestigious J-schools, along with an up-to-date, comprehensive dictionary and a thesaurus to supplement the rather basic one that comes with word-processing software.

It is clear that the present crisis on the desk will have to be acknowledged by media practitioners and decision-makers before it can be effectively tackled. Efforts to stem the rot are obviously required at multiple levels, ranging from J-schools to editors’ cabins. Stings and scoops may be the exciting high points of the media but good, sound editing is surely the bedrock on which media credibility and prestige rests.

3/2/2006, The Hoot