Are sub-editing and proofing dying skills?

We have two massive proofing jobs underway at the moment at Rainier PR, in the form of a book and a series of white papers that are working their way through the agency’s editorial team.

Proofing and sub-editing are skills that are disappearing fast in the shift to multi-skilled editorial teams where material is no longer filed for review by a sub-editor, but more often than not published straight to the web. But they are really important, valuable skills and without them our language will be all the poorer.

The rise of SEO-crafted copy is exacerbating this issue, causing real issues for journalists and writers keen to promote their craft ahead of the attention of Google.

Grammar is a topic that polarises people like no other. I’m afraid that I’m at the liberal end of the spectrum, always wanting my kids to put creativity ahead of structure. Readers of my typo-ridden blog will be relieved to hear that I have a team of pedants on hand to proof my written work.

Anyway, I landed back in the office at 4pm to find an email discussion 20 emails deep redefining the finer points of our language from the editorial teams on the two proofing projects. Here’s the top ten bug bears:

Effect is a noun, affect is a verb
Blatantly, obviously and essentially are all filler words and can almost always be deleted
Apostrophes – learn how to use them. There can be no excuses
Never use the word miracle unless divine intervention can be proven before a jury
020 7494 6570 not 0207 494 6570. That’s our switchboard number by the way if you want to ring us
Companies are singular. It not they, or them
Bullet points and items in a list should never end with a full stop. Notice that they aren’t here
More than, not over
One to nine spelled out, 10 upwards in digits
Web site is two separate words

For more grammatical nonsense check out Eat Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss and for the last word on proofing, get yourself a copy of the Economist Style Guide.

Also posted on www.rainierpr.co.uk