"I have a natural enmity with copy editors. My position: A good copy editor will make your copy better — but only on rare occasions will it be enough better to justify the delay and hassle, let alone the copy editor's salary. And good copy editors are hard to find — the best quickly move on to other jobs these days. Those that stay, especially in big organizations like the LAT, are too often repositories of self-justifying pedantry! Usually they just make copy duller. ... Does Carroll really think the Times would be discernibly worse if Ron Brownstein were allowed to type his articles right from his Blackberry onto the front page? Even if you could take the copy editors' salaries and hire more Brownsteins? ... You could make them all use spellcheck!"
Sometimes, I despair.
There are so many things wrong with this paragraph that I can't begin to list them all. But I think it suffices to say that Mickey Kaus has no idea what copy editors do, what they catch and fix, and why they're important.
Slate employs copy editors, I believe. I wonder if they work on Kaus's column. If not, it explains a lot. If so, I can only imagine what it's like originally.
There are so many things wrong with this paragraph that I can't begin to list them all. But I think it suffices to say that Mickey Kaus has no idea what copy editors do, what they catch and fix, and why they're important.
Slate employs copy editors, I believe. I wonder if they work on Kaus's column. If not, it explains a lot. If so, I can only imagine what it's like originally.