More on the loss of copy editors

After yesterday's post that included a link to a Washington Post story about the effects of having fewer copy editors, I ran into another story on the demise of the craft. The Minneapolis Star Tribune sent a memo a few weeks ago about the paper's plans to lay off part of its copy desk. In the memo, it says:

This will also require more individual responsibility: Reporters cannot turn in stories without running a basic spell check. Editors should have reporters read over every story they have edited. Photographers must turn in accurate cutlines that adhere to AP style. More staffers will need to be flexible about the work they do, meaning some reporters might serve a shift as a copy editor or line editor in any given week.

A former editor of the Star Tribune responded with this post that suggests reflexively cutting bodies without thinking through the system isn't the answer (for any paper).

I am totally on board with streamlining that system. However, I think just whacking a bunch of copy editing positions out of the system and expecting spell check to pick up the slack is a terribly ill-advised path.  Copy editing is a subtle, nuanced art that goes way beyond spotting typos. That is proofreading, not copy editing.