Having a job in journalism these days is not easy as more and more is required for those who report the news and make sure it reaches the masses.
If you’re a writer, a copy editor is someone you rely on -- that extra set of eyes which inspect and analyze your copy and make it better. It’s the one person who understands what you’re trying to say and helps you say it better than you thought possible.
What if you no longer had that cushion and instead had to rely on an automated copy editor? What if the role of a copy editor became just a memory and software was the only thing available? I shudder to think!
However, with fewer journalists in most newsrooms these days, they really do a lot more than ‘just’ write the news. Now they have to also play the role of copy editor and perhaps rely on popular software to get the job done.
Copy editors are vital. Software cannot replace a human, but call me old school. I’m a fan of copy editors. Copy editors are at risk with each newsroom cut and that means a possible loss of quality of product. Software cannot grasp the sentimentality of what a reporter needs or wants to say and it cannot detect accuracy. Only a human can tell if what a reporter has written should even be part of a story.
I can understand if one uses software as additional backup, not as a replacement. Software may be a good idea for a freelancer but for a huge media company, I will always believe that a real person is always the best choice.
For more on this topic and the inspiration for today’s Media 411, please click here for the article from the American Journalism Review.
What do you think?
Whether you're a reporter, blogger, author or other content creator, ProfNet can help you with your search for expert sources. You can send a query to tens of thousands of experts and PR agents, search the more than 60,000 profiles on ProfNet Connect, or get timely experts and story ideas by email -- all for free! Need help getting started? Email us at email@example.com