Sub standard
Duncan Gardner wrote:
On the latter point particularly, that's not so much subbing as requesting/effecting a rewrite, which should have been done before it gets to the sub, but evidently isn't going to be if it's a regular contributor.
Given the above (it's shite, but that's what the people in charge want) then yeah, if it were me I would just quickly wipe the copy's arse and not worry about trying to make it good, so long as it makes basic sense.
Duncan Gardner wrote:
I'm just a bit puzzled that the process remains as detailed as you both describe, while at the same time no-one subbing Sam or Zoe picks up either the clumsy writing style, or even the author's failure to actually watch many of the programs he's reviewing.
Venne- point taken about the impossibility of a single editor being expert in factual material across many disciplines. But for the fluffier stuff, without much factual content, is that really a problem?
Comment