Ever wonder why it’s so hard to train and sometimes communicate with editors who design newspaper pages? Could it be, perhaps, that designers, art directors, and editors often speak different languages, and were trained to think, work and interact differently?
To begin this conversation, let’s assume …
- That “training” encompasses coaching/critiquing/ mentoring/teaching, and “trainer” is the person who performs those duties, whether he holds the title of art director, design editor, news editor, AME, or whatever.
- That “copy editor” also refers to news editors, paginators, or other job roles that involve both editing and layout of the newspaper, for either news or features sections.
- That everyone’s work in the newspaper deserves to have a “second eye.” Just as the City Hall reporter’s work is edited by the city editor, so should all open display layouts be reviewed by a supervisor before publication. This person may vary in each newsroom. In some newsrooms this may be the copy chief, but in others it may be the art director.
- That trainers who were formally educated in the graphic arts may naturally speak a different language than copy editors, who likely have studied journalism or liberal arts.
- That trainers who were formally educated in journalism may lack the sufficient graphic design knowledge (or vocabulary) to articulate why a design “works,” or doesn’t.
- That few newsrooms are adequately equipped, through staffing, expertise, structure or process, to provide adequate training of the design skills of copy editors.
- That the inadequacy of training is more apparent at newspapers where copy editors have more freedom in design, and more leeway to interpret design rules; i.e., papers where copy editors do most of the display features design, create “art heads,” etc.
- That honesty is a critical element of the training dialogue: honesty about what’s important to portray visually in the paper and about what’s important to the career development of the copy editor.
