You may have read that Archant Suffolk, a division of the regional newspaper group, plans to make redundant subeditors on several of its titles and replace them with advertising designers who are not trained journalists.  Roy Greenslade’s blog post on the matter (with one of the headlines of the year) suggested the digital future would have no sub-editors and fewer journalists (and prompted the expected tide of protest from media commentators).  

Regional papers cutting costs, journalists up in arms- all perfectly normal so far. But it strikes me that PR professionals may be pleased with this news.  If subeditors eventually cease to be, then isn’t there a better chance of your next press release making it to print in its original (naturally, perfect!) form? And won’t regional newspaper editors be thankful that they can rely on your diligence in submitting copy that complies with media law? In short, why let subs interfere when you can do a perfectly good job of editing your own work for publication? 

Some may fear that a lack of subediting on reactive coverage could be harmful, removing an important filter for misleading or legally-dubious copy. Norwich Union, for example, may have been more concerned about misrepresentation had a sub editor not been on hand when it announced job cuts last year (the East Anglian Daily Times wrote on the subject, and is one of the affected titles). Conversely, you might argue that this presents an opportunity for crisis PR professionals to get their corporate position and key message on sensitive subjects into the press more easily. 

Perhaps I’m being a little simplistic, and perhaps taking on a sub-editor’s duties sounds like extra work to you! Will it really happen anyway, or is this just a chance for journalists to have a good whinge? I’d welcome your thoughts (including any corrections from subs, if necessary)