The Extermination of Copy Editors

By Matt DiVenere

Copy editors, the silent defenders of the written word, are under attack from multiple fronts and there is nothing they can do to defend themselves.

Was that too dramatic of an opening? Not even close.

When you look at the current state of journalism, copy editors should be the bell of the ball.  Instead, industry giants are rendering copy editors useless—pawns in an unfair game with the deck stacked incredibly against them.

We have been given one of two reasons why this is all unfolding: an industry shift toward more video content and a “lack of readership.” You’ve seen the internal memos being leaked that explain the company’s commitment to “staying with the times” and “responding to our viewers.”

However, the decision to move away from journalism happened a long time ago. It happened very subtly at first. But now that click-bait and video content runs the village, those who seek the written word have become labeled the village idiots.

Although this trend has gone on for much longer than it seems, it’s only come to fruition thanks to the slew of layoffs and restructuring in some of the largest media companies in the world. But there is one group of brave men and women who are standing up for themselves in the only way they know best: through the written word.

If you’re not following what is happening at The New York Times, you should. Not for the reason why you think, however. Yes, it is devastating what is happening to those copy editors. Staff cuts, workload increases, and an overall lack of respect being shown to them make an already thankless job nearly impossible to do.

“ What happens when our entire society needs information, but has no idea where to go?”

I cannot imagine a world where we will question the reporters at the newspaper of record, because that would terrify me. And it should terrify you, too. Where do you turn once your most trusted source becomes null and void? What happens when you have no one to turn to for the truth? For objectivity? What happens when our entire society needs information, but has no idea where to go?

Are you going to believe everything you find on the Internet? Will you believe nothing at all and make up your own narrative as to what is really going on?

Both scenarios are dangerous. Unfortunately, both scenarios are happening right now. We have our political parties labeling news organizations as “fake news” and are more concerned about which way they are politically leaning than what is actually being told. This has sent such a shockwave through the American people to the point where it is now part of the everyday conversation. Instead of trusting a news source and the job it has done vetting the story, the first response is always politically based.

It is the responsibility of a news organization to deliver the facts of the story and to allow its readers the opportunity to start a dialogue and form their own opinions on the matters at hand. It is one of the pillars of journalism in this country. And the facts need to be 100 percent correct, every single time. No exceptions.

By eliminating copy editors and by pinning reporters into a click-bait corner, we are stripping them of their power. We cannot continue down this path. We need to empower them. We need to support them.

So bravo to the brave copy editors at The New York Times. Your stand doesn’t fall on deaf ears. It should be echoed to the masses. Keep fighting.

More Writer’s Bone Essays

Blame Ricky Bobby for CNN’s Retracted Story

By Matt DiVenere

Can we all admit that CNN has had a rough few months? The culmination of it all is the “resignation” of three CNN journalists because of a retracted and inaccurate article on hedge-fund manager Anthony Scaramucci and his alleged relationship with a Russian investment fund that was being investigated by the Senate.

Here’s the problem: Every news outlet would jump at the bit for this story. And, according to The New York Times, that’s exactly what CNN did by publishing this article—they jumped despite the network’s standards team concerns. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for this meeting and who made the final decision to publish it.

Not too long ago (in a galaxy far, far away), when there was a retraction because of an inaccurate article, there were specific people in the workflow that the newspaper could point to. Yes, this error fell on these strong, veteran reporters and they paid the ultimate price for it.

“Forget “fake news.” This is the Ricky Bobby generation. If you ain’t first, you’re last.”

But let’s look at the bigger issue at work here. In today’s media landscape, news needs to be broken fast. It needs to be sent out before the ink dries. Well, the Internet ink at least. And when that story is broken, it gets repeated across hundreds of websites and on countless hours of network television.

This isn’t the first time a reporter has gotten a story wrong, and it certainly will not be the last. This need for speed mentality allows for crucial steps to be skipped, sped-up, or done just for show with any suggested changes or results ignored.

Now, I say this without any knowledge on what exactly happened behind the scenes at CNN, but there has to be accountability across the entire industry for articles like this. Especially now when you have the President of the United States spending (clearly) an abundant amount of time and (possibly) resources tracking network journalists’ every move.

Forget “fake news.” This is the Ricky Bobby generation. If you ain’t first, you’re last.

Journalists have always been competitive in nature. It’s just a part of the culture. Throw that competitive streak into a society that thrives on viral news, and you are bound to see people stretch their means to “win.” It’s a broken system and the only way it’s headed is down.

“Everything the job has stood for is being dragged through the mud. It’s time to win back our integrity and to boot out anyone who thinks otherwise.”

What’s worse is we need this system more than ever. We need it to be fixed, fast. But who will do it? Who can do it?

This is where the story becomes a tragedy for me. If you look at the younger generation of journalists, how will they be taught to succeed? Will the ultimate goal for future journalists be page views and notoriety? Will it be breaking meaningful, well-sourced news or is the race going to be the only driving force in the industry?

There are no easy answers. There’s no overnight fix. This will take a movement and it has to start from within. The scale is tipping against journalists every second. Everything the job has stood for is being dragged through the mud. It’s time to win back our integrity and to boot out anyone who thinks otherwise. It’s time.

More Writer’s Bone Essays

Remembering Gwen Ifill

By Daniel Ford

Gwen Ifill, co-anchor of “PBS NewsHour” and moderator of “Washington Week,” died yesterday at the age of 61. 

Ifill was a trailblazing journalist who brought warmth, dignity, and class to a profession that doesn’t always reward those qualities. As a young journalist in New York City, I admired Ifill because she wore her passion, objectivity, and intellectual curiosity on her sleeve, and never failed to bring a smile and kind personality to even the most rancorous debates and discussions.   

Our nation is entering an era of uncertainty, one in which press freedom could be severely curtailed or discredited. As television critic Daniel Fienberg said on Twitter, “This is not the time to lose journalists of dignity, integrity, and professionalism.” My hope is that Ifill’s steadfast adherence to journalistic principles will provide a blueprint for aspiring journalists so that our citizens don’t forget, abandon, or abolish the American ideals people like Ifill embodied so brilliantly. 

During one of the talks below, Ifill says something that sums up everything I believe about journalism and the American experience. She was promoting her book, but was more eager to hear from the audience. She says, “I’ll turn it over to your questions because that’s how I get to learn stuff back.” Ifill understood that true learning comes from listening, which is why it’s imperative that you take time in the coming weeks and months to listen to her words and thoughts regarding our political system and today’s news media. We’re going to need to learn an awful lot in a hurry. 

Gwen Ifill, you will be sorely missed. I hope we live up to your classy example. 

The Real Reason Why This Election Cycle Is the Worst in A Long Time

By Dave Pezza

Yes, that headline reads like one of those shitty Facebook posts that the most annoying people can’t help but share every 20 minutes. We used to call it a hook, now we call it click bait, but either way you still clicked on it so...fooled you!

This election cycle is considerably unbearable not because of this year’s morally repugnant, economically exploitive, and embarrassingly hypocritical candidates. Although, those facts are not open for interpretation in the comments section. We are quite possibly facing the worst Democratic and Republican candidates for president in the last 40 years, maybe longer if you considered Nixon v. McGovern a terrible prospect (a quick reminder that Nixon won that election by 520 electoral votes to 17!). No, the true horror of the 2016 election is that we must brave it without our fiercest weapon in the fight against political tyranny, Jon Stewart.

I’m always a little late to the party, but after recently watching Stewart take over “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” I realized how much I not only miss him, but how much I need him. His is the only public voice that has ever come close to harmonizing with my own. I watched “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” religiously for years, especially during election years. Stewart has always had an inexplicable knack for sniffing out bullshit.  But more than that, he can present the flip-flopping, the contradictions, and the straight-up lies with such a grounded tone that any disagreements I may have with his personal politics melt away in the heat of his fiery carpet bombs of truth. And perhaps that is how we as a culture are most hurt by his absence. The absence of Jon Stewart is an absence of intelligent political conversation.

My fondest memories of “The Daily Show” are not his tirades on President Bush or his utter destruction of the Fox News Network, but his conversations and debates with guests with whom he simply did not agree. For example, Stewart and Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly have had one of the best working relationships among political pundits of opposite sensibilities. They have appeared on each other’s programs a handful of times, and each time they managed to have intelligent, albeit heated, discussions about legitimate political topics, including popular vote versus electoral vote, white privilege, and the role of television journalism. They even took part in an actual televised debate in 2012 that lasted more than an hour and a half.

My fear is not that conservatism will run wild without the liberal Stewart keeping it in check (I think it is clear nothing can keep the Republican Party from a Death Star-scale implosion). My fear is what will happen now that these types of conversations are ending. Trevor Noah has tried his best to facilitate his own, unique version of “The Daily Show,” one that clearly and unapologetically skews to a younger and at times angrier fan base. And there is certainly nothing wrong or undignified about that approach. We also still have Stephen Colbert, who has never strayed too far from the Stewart mentality of responsible query and dissonance. But Colbert’s role in the zeitgeist is different from when he and Stewart shared an hour of late night coverage on a backwater network. Colbert now finds himself in an environment that calls for a bit more poise, some self-control, and some nonnegotiable ass kissing. Stewart put it more diplomatically (to no one’s surprise) after Colbert playfully reminded him that “The Late Show” is recorded live and that he couldn’t use the word “bullshit:” Stewart apologized, saying, “I’ve never been on a television show with stakes before.” 

And again, no one should criticize Colbert or his program for this. He is still Colbert, but a different forum on a different network means concessions. Even so, he has still done a terrific job of skirting that line in order to stay true to his faithful fans.

At the end of the day, we’re still missing our scrappy, Mets-loving, Arby’s-trashing political outlaw with nothing to lose, barreling ahead with appropriate abandon at the talking heads, the empty pant suits, and the spewers of nonsense and lies.

Essays Archive

We Interrupt This Broadcast for...Wait...What?

We have a feeling Justin Bieber wouldn't have gotten these guys attention.

By Matt DiVenere

As long as I can remember, I have wanted to be a journalist. To me, being a journalist was to hold a position of trust and respect not only in a community, but nationally. So when it came to choosing a major at Saint Michael’s College (located in Colchester, Vt.), there was no hesitation. I walked into my first journalism class filled with enthusiasm, excitement and confidence.

Fast forward to Jan. 22. A live report on MSNBC with former U.S. Representative Jane Harman is suddenly interrupted by breaking news. However, the current conversation involved the National Security Agency and Harman’s belief that the government needed to end the Section 215 bulk phone records collection program. What could have been so important that this conversation, taking place via satellite from Switzerland, had to be interrupted?

Well, if you’ve been following the news at all lately, you would know that the breaking news was pop singer Justin Bieber facing a judge at a video bond hearing for an alleged DUI charge.

Now this isn’t about bashing Bieber. This is about the decision made by television executives to interrupt the Congresswoman for entertainment. Let’s look at this purely from a journalism perspective.

Remember when lawyer jokes were all the rage? Well, unfortunately, the only joke I hear now is about the field that I love. The definition of journalism has changed. Being a journalist now has a very negative connotation. There used to be a line drawn in the sand between the news found on your doorstep and the news found next to the check-out counter at your local grocery store.

No more. 

Entertainment has become the news.

There are many reasons as to why or how this even happened. Some say it was inevitable. The uninformed believe that this is how the media needs to adapt in order to stay relevant in today’s society. To those who believe that entertainment is news, I would say that my college education disagrees.

Entertainment is not the news. You need the news, entertainment is a luxury.

Unfortunately, those who are doing the news answer to those who don’t necessarily care that there’s a difference. Entertainment brings ratings. With high ratings come advertisers, profits, etc. If a television program wants to survive, people need to be entertained. It’s the same reason why "American Idol" is on its 80th season (it’s not, it just feels like it)?

In the past five to 10 years, everyone’s attention span for news-related information has nearly become extinct. Instead, it has been replaced with the desire to know the latest gossip about our favorite “celebrities.”

In an age where there is an infinite amount of ways to collect breaking news, why focus on how other people live their lives? Why do you care more about which celebrity is pregnant than the nation’s economy? Why is a celebrity’s arrest record more important than their country’s security agency that may or may not have been spying on its citizens?

So how do you fix this infatuation with celebrities that has taken over the country? If I knew, I would be a billionaire conglomerate on my way to overtaking all of the cable networks across the country. 

This situation is so absurd that it's pathetic. And there’s no easy fix.

Until someone figures out what the news has become and is brave enough to do something about it, then we will continue to have our important news be interrupted by pop stars in orange jump suits.

For more essays, check out our full archive.