Pullquote from a bit of morning reading at the Knight Digital Media Center’s News Leadership 3.0 blog:
“I once consulted at a well-respected metro newspaper where several writers told me they tried to avoid pitching their stories for the front page because the ‘serial editing’ of these stories was such a hassle for them and damaging to their stories.”
That’s Michele McLellan writing about Rupert Murdoch’s claim that the average Wall Street Journal story passes across the desks of 8.3 editors.
How often have you heard from reporters who hold on to a solid story idea because they’re afraid their editors will “just ruin it” ?
8.3 is a big number, too many pairs of eyes for even the WSJ, but in many cases, I think even the three or four editors that a story at a small paper might run through are too many. To be honest, sometimes one editor can get the job done — if it’s the right editor.
A note to my fellow graduate students: Agenda-setting is real, and it matters who edits a story last and who looks over the copy editor’s shoulder while they put together headlines, but inefficiency outweighs bias most of the time.
Unrelated bonus link: Pullquotes.org, a fun little database-powered Sunlight-type project that lets you guess which political party a quotee belongs to.