rags

dubtom

So what's actually involved, qualifaction wise, to become a journo, be it tabloid or otherwise.Years of college,post grads, masters?What leap does it take after all those years of grinding to then write for a paper like the sun or star,which are,lets face it, absolute ****e. Or perhaps a career in model/celeb chasing, where one of them goes to a restaurant and farts and it gets the front page. I know we all have to earn a buck but when it comes to you dishing out drivel or worse,just filling page with uncredited tripe, you know the stuff that sits at the side of the page,usually stuff just repeated from an earlier page, is it not time to think of a new career.I know these rags probably sell thousands every day, so someone's reading,their popularity can't be still because of page 3. But does the fact that thousands are reading your drivel not make it drivel, in other words,is it enough to be read.Or do these rags pay humongus wages. I'm just asking like.

Jackie laughlin

The arrival of "journalism" and "communications" as subjects for study and even as subjects in which one can obtain a degree greatly increased the problem of the poorly educated journalist, producer, researcher.

santosubito

dubtom wrote:

So what's actually involved, qualifaction wise, to become a journo, be it tabloid or otherwise.Years of college,post grads, masters?What leap does it take after all those years of grinding to then write for a paper like the sun or star,which are,lets face it, absolute ****e. Or perhaps a career in model/celeb chasing, where one of them goes to a restaurant and farts and it gets the front page. I know we all have to earn a buck but when it comes to you dishing out drivel or worse,just filling page with uncredited tripe, you know the stuff that sits at the side of the page,usually stuff just repeated from an earlier page, is it not time to think of a new career.I know these rags probably sell thousands every day, so someone's reading,their popularity can't be still because of page 3. But does the fact that thousands are reading your drivel not make it drivel, in other words,is it enough to be read.Or do these rags pay humongus wages. I'm just asking like.

A basic grasp of grammar helps, like.

brianthebard

Basically no degree is required, experience is key in journalism. The cream will rise to the top after a while and the lesser qualified, either naturally or college wise, will continue to "write" for "papers" like the sun and their ilk.

dubtom

santosubito wrote:

A basic grasp of grammar helps, like.

Was it just the one grammer slip up santo, like,or have my dreams been dashed so soon after realising that my 'Group cert' results would be enough for a career as a hack.

santosubito

dubtom wrote:

Was it just the one grammer slip up santo, like,or have my dreams been dashed so soon after realising that my 'Group cert' results would be enough for a career as a hack.

There were far too many to count, I'm afraid.

eoin5

Proof readers have to make a living too

Tha Gopher

Local papers ae the best. Once seen a court report in one that made six seperate references to a seizure of "ecstasy tables" (yes, tables, those things with legs that aid eating and drinking)

Man I remember my first rave, off my nut neckin down tables all night....

hot fuss

Often writing for some of the red tops is more about having a brass neck than it is about writing skills...

So basically if you dont' have a conscience, it helps!

silvine

dubtom wrote:

So what's actually involved, qualifaction wise, to become a journo, be it tabloid or otherwise.Years of college,post grads, masters?What leap does it take after all those years of grinding to then write for a paper like the sun or star,which are,lets face it, absolute ****e. Or perhaps a career in model/celeb chasing, where one of them goes to a restaurant and farts and it gets the front page. I know we all have to earn a buck but when it comes to you dishing out drivel or worse,just filling page with uncredited tripe, you know the stuff that sits at the side of the page,usually stuff just repeated from an earlier page, is it not time to think of a new career.I know these rags probably sell thousands every day, so someone's reading,their popularity can't be still because of page 3. But does the fact that thousands are reading your drivel not make it drivel, in other words,is it enough to be read.Or do these rags pay humongus wages. I'm just asking like.

Maybe you should write a letter to the editor... and make the
the subs would earn their wages.

monument

Given that you’re asking about “tabloid or otherwise”, can we take it that all journalists work for ‘rags’ – or is your headline misleading?

As for the journalism and college, I’ve have got somewhat mixed messages from others in the media on what is needed/wanted/preferred.

Some (most) say the journalism courses in the universities aren’t worth it. But on the other hand most appear to have higher respect for the Print Journalism diploma in BCFE (I’m currently doing as a mature student). Another option I’ve heard that appears to be liked is doing a degree etc in some (non-journalism) area you’re interested in and bring that experience with you into the media.

You say the “sun or star,which are,lets face it, absolute ****e”, I think that’s a bit unfair to the Irish Daily Star – have you actually read and compared both?

To be ****ing honest, you’re just ranting after that, and it makes it hard to know if you want questions answered or just having a dig at tabloids and/or journalism in general. I'm really unsure if your post is just "drivel" or if you have any kind of real point or questions you wanted answered. If you want to become a journalist you may want to improve your typing first.

Qualifications generally mean fcuk-all in a newsroom. I've come across people with masters degrees who wouldn't know a good story if it slapped them in the face.
I also know some great reporters with no 'qualifications'.
A real interest in news and current affairs, the ability to source new stories and build contacts and a hard neck are the basic requirements.
Subs are there to knock copy into shape, so you don't need to be a brilliant writer unless you want to write 4,000 word features.

As for your tabloid-bashing, remember that journalism in Ireland is a small world and a lot of broadsheet writers started out in red-tops. They don't suddenly become fantastic reporters when their business card changes.

monument

Deleted User wrote:

Subs are there to knock copy into shape, so you don't need to be a brilliant writer unless you want to write 4,000 word features.

Two things on that, while you might not need to be a brilliant writer, being a half decent one helps (and, as you said, there is a lot more then writing to it), and while no matter what you do your editor or a sub may edit copy but the better your copy is the less of a chance it'll be messed around with.

santosubito

monument wrote:

Two things on that, while you might not need to be a brilliant writer, being a half decent one helps (and, as you said, there is a lot more then writing to it), and while no matter what you do your editor or a sub may edit copy but the better your copy is the less of a chance it'll be messed around with.

Not that I'm bitter, but, with the current state of subbing in all newspapers in this state, reporters need to be able to write very well. Subbing used to be something to which people aspired - now young fellas coming out of college are doing it! They're actually putting mistakes into copy. There are good subs, but unfortunately they are few and far between.
The Joe O'Reilly case was a fine example: the number of subs in several papers who changed perfectly good copy into something dangerous was, frankly, scary.

dubtom

It's quite revealing how those, and I'm reading between the lines here, involved or aspiring to get involved in the trade take offence at my original post and resort to taking on the role as editor. If I wanted advice on my grammar and writing I'd have posted to the creative writing forum. If your skills are up to the mark you should not feel the need to defend or ridicule, why do you?

flogen

santosubito wrote:

The Joe O'Reilly case was a fine example: the number of subs in several papers who changed perfectly good copy into something dangerous was, frankly, scary.

That's interesting.

A question in relation to this - do you think this happening was the result of bad sub editing skills in general or was it an active attempt by some subs (be it through their own decision or a demand from above) to "liven up" the copy; something that's a dangerous thing to do in such a high profile murder case?

Riviere

santosubito wrote:

The Joe O'Reilly case was a fine example: the number of subs in several papers who changed perfectly good copy into something dangerous was, frankly, scary.

Why was the number of subs so scary? It's usually one sub per story in most newspapers. 'Several' newspapers would mean, er, several subs. Maybe the fact that the copy was changed into something dangerous by subs in several newspapers was scary?

'Reporters need to be able to write very well.' Indeed.

flogen wrote:

A question in relation to this - do you think this happening was the result of bad sub editing skills in general or was it an active attempt by some subs (be it through their own decision or a demand from above) to "liven up" the copy; something that's a dangerous thing to do in such a high profile murder case?

Before we lose the run of ourselves here, how do we know that the copy was 'perfectly good' before it landed at the newsdesks or backbenches? Which several newspapers were the ones in question? Give us direct examples from these several newspapers of how 'perfectly good' copy had 'dangerous' mistakes inserted by subs.

It's quite common for wholesale changes to be made to straight court reports: background information is often stitched in and/or the copy needs to be rewritten. However, this is usually done at newsdesk or backbench level and rarely by the subs, unless they are experienced. Reporters don't like it, but that's tough. The notion that fresh-out-of-college kids have carte blanche to go mental and change high-profile court cases without the finished product being checked by the backbench and/or a lawyer is fanciful, to put it mildly.

flogen

Riviere wrote:

Before we lose the run of ourselves here, how do we know that the copy was 'perfectly good' before it landed at the newsdesks or backbenches? Which several newspapers were the ones in question? Give us direct examples from these several newspapers of how 'perfectly good' copy had 'dangerous' mistakes inserted by subs.

Maybe it wasn't published because it was stopped by the paper's lawyers or even a member of the editorial team?

My question wasn't suggesting that all changes made by subs were dangerous, it was in relation to the poster's claim that this had happened a number of times.

As I said already, dangerous reporting in a high profile murder case is usually when someone verges towards comment or colour - I assume this is what the poster was referring to.

It's quite common for wholesale changes to be made to straight court reports: background information is often stitched in and/or the copy needs to be rewritten. However, this is usually done at newsdesk or backbench level and rarely by the subs, unless they are experienced. Reporters don't like it, but that's tough. The notion that fresh-out-of-college kids have carte blanche to go mental and change high-profile court cases without the finished product being checked by the backbench and/or a lawyer is fanciful, to put it mildly.

You seem to be extremely defensive about this - I haven't seen a suggestion that all changes made by subs to copy is for the worst, just a suggestion that some is. I don't think it's too fanciful to assume that there are plenty of poor quality subs out there and that there have been plenty of articles made worse by their interference.

These may well have been caught before they were published too but if they were howlers, major errors or extremely dangerous (as has been suggested) then the chances are word got around the office, and indeed around the gang of court reporters from various 'papers, about them even if they never saw the light of day.

blue4ever

santosubito wrote:

The Joe O'Reilly case was a fine example: the number of subs in several papers who changed perfectly good copy into something dangerous was, frankly, scary.

If several subs, in several papers, changed the ‘perfectively good copy’- would it not be, therefore, a consensus that the copy was actually sh1t in the first place?

santosubito

flogen wrote:

That's interesting.

A question in relation to this - do you think this happening was the result of bad sub editing skills in general or was it an active attempt by some subs (be it through their own decision or a demand from above) to "liven up" the copy; something that's a dangerous thing to do in such a high profile murder case?

No, I just think it was bad subbing.

santosubito

Riviere wrote:

Why was the number of subs so scary? It's usually one sub per story in most newspapers. 'Several' newspapers would mean, er, several subs. Maybe the fact that the copy was changed into something dangerous by subs in several newspapers was scary?

'Reporters need to be able to write very well.' Indeed.



Before we lose the run of ourselves here, how do we know that the copy was 'perfectly good' before it landed at the newsdesks or backbenches? Which several newspapers were the ones in question? Give us direct examples from these several newspapers of how 'perfectly good' copy had 'dangerous' mistakes inserted by subs.

It's quite common for wholesale changes to be made to straight court reports: background information is often stitched in and/or the copy needs to be rewritten. However, this is usually done at newsdesk or backbench level and rarely by the subs, unless they are experienced. Reporters don't like it, but that's tough. The notion that fresh-out-of-college kids have carte blanche to go mental and change high-profile court cases without the finished product being checked by the backbench and/or a lawyer is fanciful, to put it mildly.

I'll be happy to give an example that springs to mind immediately. By the way, writing on a board like this is completely different to writing in a newspaper. So you'll forgive me if the standards I use professionally are not the same as here.

Anyway, here's a perfect example. The trial heard that Joe O'Reilly told Rachel's parents that there were rumours circulating that they had abused their daughter. A sub on the Mail changed that to there were rumours that he had abused Rachel. That's a pretty big change for a sub to make. And it was a downtable sub. It certainly wasn't anyone on the backbench.

Then The Mirror reporter had a piece that Nikki Pelley stayed over at the O'Reilly home when Rachel was away: that was changed to they had sex in her bed!

Or what about the Sun saying the couple had sex three times a week when the copy merely said they met up three times a week?

Or what about The Star saying O'Reilly and Pelley had an affair when (at that stage) the evidence only said they were close?

The Times and Indo were also guilty of putting in mistakes to reporters' copy, but not as serious as the bove.

All changes made by subs.

I could go on for quite some time. The standard of subbing in this country is a disgrace. And if you work in any national newspaper, you will have seen the number of young subs, with the minimum of experience, working there.

santosubito

Riviere wrote:

Why was the number of subs so scary? It's usually one sub per story in most newspapers. 'Several' newspapers would mean, er, several subs. Maybe the fact that the copy was changed into something dangerous by subs in several newspapers was scary?

'Reporters need to be able to write very well.' Indeed.

Well, surely you must recognise that the O'Reilly case (as an example) did not see every story handled by one sub every day in the same newspaper? So, I think it is fair to say there were several subs involved in the subbing operation for each newspaper on that case alone. I hope that clarifies things for, er, you.

santosubito

Riviere wrote:

It's quite common for wholesale changes to be made to straight court reports: background information is often stitched in and/or the copy needs to be rewritten. However, this is usually done at newsdesk or backbench level and rarely by the subs, unless they are experienced. Reporters don't like it, but that's tough. The notion that fresh-out-of-college kids have carte blanche to go mental and change high-profile court cases without the finished product being checked by the backbench and/or a lawyer is fanciful, to put it mildly.

That's nonsense. In all the papers for which I have worked, the subs change copy, be they experienced or not.

Riviere

santosubito wrote:

By the way, writing on a board like this is completely different to writing in a newspaper. So you'll forgive me if the standards I use professionally are not the same as here.

Fine, but perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to the posters you constantly flame for poor grammar and so on.

santosubito wrote:

Anyway, here's a perfect example. The trial heard that Joe O'Reilly told Rachel's parents that there were rumours circulating that they had abused their daughter. A sub on the Mail changed that to there were rumours that he had abused Rachel. That's a pretty big change for a sub to make. And it was a downtable sub. It certainly wasn't anyone on the backbench.

Then The Mirror reporter had a piece that Nikki Pelley stayed over at the O'Reilly home when Rachel was away: that was changed to they had sex in her bed!

Or what about the Sun saying the couple had sex three times a week when the copy merely said they met up three times a week?

Or what about The Star saying O'Reilly and Pelley had an affair when (at that stage) the evidence only said they were close?

The Times and Indo were also guilty of putting in mistakes to reporters' copy, but not as serious as the bove.

All changes made by subs.

Unless you saw the original filed copy and were in the newsrooms of each of these newspapers on the nights in question, how can you say that these transgressions were down to the subs?

santosubito wrote:

I could go on for quite some time. The standard of subbing in this country is a disgrace. And if you work in any national newspaper, you will have seen the number of young subs, with the minimum of experience, working there.

Agreed. However, let us not forget that for every bad sub there's at least one equally bad reporter out there. The general standard of filed copy in this country is also abysmal, in my experience.

Riviere

santosubito wrote:

Well, surely you must recognise that the O'Reilly case (as an example) did not see every story handled by one sub every day in the same newspaper? So, I think it is fair to say there were several subs involved in the subbing operation for each newspaper on that case alone. I hope that clarifies things for, er, you.

Er, not really. I was just slagging the gash way in which you phrased it, that's all.

Riviere

santosubito wrote:

That's nonsense. In all the papers for which I have worked, the subs change copy, be they experienced or not.

Nonsense? Of course subs change copy. I never said they didn't. I stated that most of the major changes (adding background, major rewrites etc) to important court copy is usually done at backbench level and rarely by the subs, especially the inexperienced ones. That's been the case in almost all of the papers on which I've worked

I thought the post was quite clear, but maybe it needs a rewrite.

monument

dubtom wrote:

It's quite revealing how those, and I'm reading between the lines here, involved or aspiring to get involved in the trade take offence at my original post and resort to taking on the role as editor. If I wanted advice on my grammar and writing I'd have posted to the creative writing forum. If your skills are up to the mark you should not feel the need to defend or ridicule, why do you?

I don't know what you expected with the tone of the first post... as I said - to be honest it isn't clear if you were just taking pot shots at the media, or wanted answers, or maybe both.

santosubito wrote:

All changes made by subs.

With all of those, how can you be so sure? Was it agency copy you had a chance to see? Otherwise, I'd love to know how you are so sure it was the subs and not a the reporters (or could it have been the news editor, or the editor, or other depending on the paper?).

santosubito

monument wrote:

I don't know what you expected with the tone of the first post... as I said - to be honest it isn't clear if you were just taking pot shots at the media, or wanted answers, or maybe both.



With all of those, how can you be so sure? Was it agency copy you had a chance to see? Otherwise, I'd love to know how you are so sure it was the subs and not a the reporters (or could it have been the news editor, or the editor, or other depending on the paper?).

Well, it's simple really. I asked all the reporters who were giving out about their copy being changed. They all said the copy was changed by subs.
We do talk to each other occasionally:D

santosubito

Riviere wrote:

Nonsense? Of course subs change copy. I never said they didn't. I stated that most of the major changes (adding background, major rewrites etc) to important court copy is usually done at backbench level and rarely by the subs, especially the inexperienced ones. That's been the case in almost all of the papers on which I've worked

I thought the post was quite clear, but maybe it needs a rewrite.

Maybe it does. I know this isn't a mickey swinging contest, but all the papers I've worked for have seen subs changing the majority of the copy. We mustn't have worked for the same papers. Oh, and I don't know what flaming means, but I don't think I constantly do it. But there is a difference between an akwardly phrased sentence and somebody coming on here, slagging of reporters and not even having the bascis of grammar. Anyway, i think my original sentence made perfect sense!

santosubito

Riviere wrote:

Fine, but perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to the posters you constantly flame for poor grammar and so on.



Unless you saw the original filed copy and were in the newsrooms of each of these newspapers on the nights in question, how can you say that these transgressions were down to the subs?



Agreed. However, let us not forget that for every bad sub there's at least one equally bad reporter out there. The general standard of filed copy in this country is also abysmal, in my experience.

You're quite right. Where I work at the moment there are some very good subs (and some very bad ones). But there are also several really bad reporters. And I've noticed the same in other papers. Obviously, I only see it from a reporter's perspective but my sub friends on the paper do moan about the standard and writing by reporters, both freelance and staff.
So, in essence, there are an anwful lot of crap reporters and subs:mad:

Riviere

santosubito wrote:

You're quite right. Where I work at the moment there are some very good subs (and some very bad ones). But there are also several really bad reporters. And I've noticed the same in other papers. Obviously, I only see it from a reporter's perspective but my sub friends on the paper do moan about the standard and writing by reporters, both freelance and staff.
So, in essence, there are an anwful lot of crap reporters and subs:mad:

Be thankful that you don't have to manage both.

Riviere

santosubito wrote:

Well, it's simple really. I asked all the reporters who were giving out about their copy being changed. They all said the copy was changed by subs.
We do talk to each other occasionally:D

Aha! The old 'sub-put-the-mistakes-into-my-copy' pub talk. An excuse that's as old as newspapers themselves.