The stereotypical editor is a grumpy old man who talks in grunts and whose desk is full of dirty coffee cups.
It’s an enduring image, fuelled by journalists who seem to take pride in having worked under awful bosses. Get a group of them together, and the chances are they will begin trying to trump each other with war stories. My editor was worse than yours — that sort of thing.
In fact, though, it is a great privilege to work with a good editor — someone who can use axe or scalpel, depending on what is appropriate. Good editors help sharpen a writer’s thinking. They make sure that the focus is clear, that the material is organised to support it and that the right questions are asked. And, if they are subeditors, they write headlines that sum up the piece in a way that draws readers in.
Good editing shows. When the Mail & Guardian ran a collection of reports from Evaton, Harrismith and other small towns a few weeks ago, taking their temperature ahead of local government elections, it was clear there had been an editorial intelligence at work. The concept worked, and there was enough description and detail to provide a real insight into the atmosphere in these towns.
Where the editorial process falters, the results are just as obvious.
Some weeks ago, I was drawn to a piece on the Democratic Alliance’s Joe Seremane in the wake of the floor-crossing by five prominent black members. It was an inspired idea to take a look at the man who was left behind, and the headline — “Last black man standing” — was brilliant. In the event, though, the piece was disappointing. It offered little that was new, unable to make up its mind whether it was a straight interview or a profile. It felt like a first draft. Sharp editing would have sent it back for more thought, research and writing, so that it could fulfil its promise.
In addition, it was labelled as news analysis. Just about everything these days seems to be tagged in this way, even where the story is clearly nothing more than a straight report. I should probably take some responsibility for this, since I’ve been calling for clearer signposts for different kinds of writing. But really, I’d rather not have labels than ones that are so obviously incorrect.
In the same edition, a report on the rape charge against soccer player “Tso” Vilakazi (again labelled news analysis) also left me wondering what it was really about. Sharper editing would have helped define a clearer focus.
That same edition devoted considerable space to the murder of mining entrepreneur Brett Kebble, with a front-page headline that I still don’t understand, despite having puzzled over it extensively. “Kebble hit the ‘perfect storm'”, it said — was that “hit” intended as a noun or a verb?
Editors also have an important role to play in working on investigative pieces. This kind of work requires the journalists to immerse themselves in a swamp of detail — editors need to help them find a way out. The reports need to prove whatever case they are making, and that needs detail. But readers need to be able to find their way through information that is often mind-numbingly complex.
In some recent cases, more could have been done to make the information accessible.
Devices such as fact boxes, short summaries and graphics have been used to give hasty readers the gist of the report. They are not always successful: I thought the diagram that accompanied the recent report on a diamond deal involving Kebble and an Angolan general was very obscure.
Good editing requires time. The Kebble story broke on a Tuesday night, comparatively late for the M&G’s deadlines. It must have put considerable pressure on the editing process, which accounts for some things slipping through the net.
Even under the best circumstances, time is tight in a newsroom. It’s no wonder that stereotypical editor drinks so much coffee.
An e-mailed complaint about some headlines about Oilgate stories on the M&G’s website reached me the other day even though it had been sent months ago — it seems some gremlins in the computer system decided to hide it for a while. Anton Alberts felt the headlines did not give sufficient credit to the Freedom Front Plus, which put some of the Oilgate allegations into the public domain by using parliamentary privilege.
The reader felt that one headline in particular, “Imvume defends against Oilgate claims”, should have mentioned the party since it referred to the FF+’s action.
But a look at the report revealed that the reference to the party was made by way of background, and the real focus was on Imvume’s response. I felt that the headline was appropriate and fair.
In responding to Alberts, I made the point that headlines need to be read together with the report itself. In any event, they are not primarily vehicles for credit to be given any particular group. A headline summarises the report. It would create an untenable situation if newspapers had to writes headlines according to who deserved credit.
In general, the paper has reported the party’s involvement in the matter.
If readers have any complaints they would like addressed, contact Franz Krüger at [email protected] or call (011) 250 7300 and leave a message