Note the multiple media elements of
this folo report on Carol Gotbaum's death at Sky Harbor. There's the main text story with links to other text reports, a source video from the airport, a statement from her family, a collection of witness quotes supplied by the Phoenix police, a still image with cutline material, and a host of "reader" comments that range from the astute to crude, rude and ludicrous. The question with which many editors grapple is which parts of this package should be edited, and to what extent? It brings up a larger issue: what is the goal of having something edited? Literacy? Fairness? Basic intelligence? The avoidance of libel? Public service? Copy editors have a responsibility to protect their publication from looking stupid or doing harm. Does that mean only publication employees -- reporters, editors, producers, etc. -- have the benefit of someone cleaning up their language and double-checking their thought processes? Do they only have that protection when they're reporting in certain genres -- in a "story" form rather than in a blog, for example? Should members of the public have that protection as well -- which means, suddenly, that copy editors are responsible for editing material from people they don't know, have no newsroom ties to, and did not agree to edit when they signed on for the job? We are in the turmoil of genuine upheaval as we transition toward a new journalism: same principles, perhaps, but vastly different modes of expression and accountability. Fascinating.
