As part of the globalization sweep of the last decade or so, more and more U.S. companies are outsourcing their production, management and oftentimes, entire businesses to other countries. Seen as a way of lowering costs and increasing efficiency, outsourcing (known alternately as offshoring) can prove especially appealing to industries facing economic hardships.
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. media has hopped aboard the outsourcing train as well, as more and more publishing companies and other media organizations opt to send their copy abroad for editing. But in the case of journalism, outsourcing raises controversy beyond the bounds of free versus fair trade or issues of nationalism. When publications turn their eyes abroad for editing, they are putting the quality and integrity of their product on the line. While it is true that the editors in the countries performing this editing, chiefly India, are fluent in English, a job as meticulous and tedious as copy editing has already proven itself to be better kept at home.
The unease with outsourced editing among the journalism world is evident in the response it has been met with. The May / June 2008 Columbia Journalism Review noted that a news Web site in California was “roundly mocked” when it opted to offshore its editing, and the uproar such a decision caused at the Miami Herald led to its reversal. Why is this so? When stories are edited abroad, the quality of that editing often drops. My father, a college professor, witnessed this firsthand when the company that publishes his textbooks outsourced their editing services. In one instance, the editing performed was so light as to barely be noticeable. When the editing did get more aggressive, the results were egregious compared with those he had witnessed from domestic editors. Perhaps editors abroad simply need better training, but surely their knowledge not only of a given editing style but of the English language itself, no matter how proficient, places these editors at a disadvantage to those who have grown up in and around U.S. media.
Some publications have opted to hold out on outsourcing their editing. My colleagues and I had the opportunity at our workshop last week to dine with New York Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson, who assured me that the Times has every intention of keeping their copy editing in house. Though it seems probable that the nation's most esteemed news sources will do the same, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that an unnamed "mainstream U.S. daily" is discussing a contract with the Indian-based company Express KCS. Yet, should these publications be totally blamed for their actions? From a pragmatic standpoint, a struggling industry should do everything it can to stay financially afloat. But should that include something that may come to compromise its integrity?
Of course, the world of media is now in a state of constant flux, and with the emergence of the blogosphere as yet another widespread form of media, editing is again placed in a precarious situation. Any good journalist knows that no matter how good a writer he or she may be, the most precise editing can only be performed by someone other than the writer himself. Bloggers generally have no editors other than themselves, even those with a tremendous readership. Is this a sign that we are moving away from the need for strict editing of our media sources, shifting our focus instead to the content of the writing? Quality editing was once the hallmark of quality journalism. Is this distinction something that should be sacrificed?
Unsurprisingly, the U.S. media has hopped aboard the outsourcing train as well, as more and more publishing companies and other media organizations opt to send their copy abroad for editing. But in the case of journalism, outsourcing raises controversy beyond the bounds of free versus fair trade or issues of nationalism. When publications turn their eyes abroad for editing, they are putting the quality and integrity of their product on the line. While it is true that the editors in the countries performing this editing, chiefly India, are fluent in English, a job as meticulous and tedious as copy editing has already proven itself to be better kept at home.
The unease with outsourced editing among the journalism world is evident in the response it has been met with. The May / June 2008 Columbia Journalism Review noted that a news Web site in California was “roundly mocked” when it opted to offshore its editing, and the uproar such a decision caused at the Miami Herald led to its reversal. Why is this so? When stories are edited abroad, the quality of that editing often drops. My father, a college professor, witnessed this firsthand when the company that publishes his textbooks outsourced their editing services. In one instance, the editing performed was so light as to barely be noticeable. When the editing did get more aggressive, the results were egregious compared with those he had witnessed from domestic editors. Perhaps editors abroad simply need better training, but surely their knowledge not only of a given editing style but of the English language itself, no matter how proficient, places these editors at a disadvantage to those who have grown up in and around U.S. media.
Some publications have opted to hold out on outsourcing their editing. My colleagues and I had the opportunity at our workshop last week to dine with New York Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson, who assured me that the Times has every intention of keeping their copy editing in house. Though it seems probable that the nation's most esteemed news sources will do the same, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that an unnamed "mainstream U.S. daily" is discussing a contract with the Indian-based company Express KCS. Yet, should these publications be totally blamed for their actions? From a pragmatic standpoint, a struggling industry should do everything it can to stay financially afloat. But should that include something that may come to compromise its integrity?
Of course, the world of media is now in a state of constant flux, and with the emergence of the blogosphere as yet another widespread form of media, editing is again placed in a precarious situation. Any good journalist knows that no matter how good a writer he or she may be, the most precise editing can only be performed by someone other than the writer himself. Bloggers generally have no editors other than themselves, even those with a tremendous readership. Is this a sign that we are moving away from the need for strict editing of our media sources, shifting our focus instead to the content of the writing? Quality editing was once the hallmark of quality journalism. Is this distinction something that should be sacrificed?
– Regina, Five Wire Editor
No comments:
Post a Comment