When Outsourcing is Just Plain Stupid

Allow me to go on a rant today. As a journalist, I've been following with a combination of interest and dread the new trend of outsourcing copy editing to India. It's a cost-cutting measure, of course. But it's the most patently idiotic thing I've heard in ages.

For those who don't know, a copy editor is the person tasked with keeping misprints, spelling errors, typos, and potentially libelous stuff out of your daily dose of news. They also write headlines and captions and proofread graphics. It's a difficult, painstaking and often thankless job that's a challenge even for well-educated word nerds. They are the unsung heroes of journalism.

Copy editors are pros at spelling, grammar, fact-checking and editing. They are well-informed about both their topics and their community and know how to tread lightly on the fragile egos of reporters and editors. They work awful hours, aren't paid very much, and look down the barrel of the gun anytime a mistake slips through.

And perhaps most importantly: They're part of a team. Writers and editors can be secure in the knowledge that copy editors have their back. They may not make the all-star lineup, to continue the team analogy, but most of the folks in the newsroom would agree that copy editors are the behind-the-scenes MVPs.

So why in the name of all that is journalistically holy would you trust this job to someone who doesn't speak English as a native language and has no connection to the team or your community? And imagine the inefficiencies that will result from having a remote workforce when it's deadline time ("Thank you for calling. You've reached the voicemail of..."). Or, heaven forbid, what if a broken cable brings India's Internet to a crawl? Newsrooms are among the most time-sensitive of offices. Throw in a handful of delays and all hell will break loose.

But, argue the practical bean counters, it's a cost-saver. It helps the bottom line. Newspapers aren't in the game to make wordsmithing an art; they're out to make a buck.

I can't argue that it might be good business. But it's bad for the team, bad for productivity, bad for quality control -- and at the end of the day, it's just plain bad for journalism.

(image by Jennie R.F. via Flickr, CC 2.0)
Like what you've read here? Hate it? Think BNET can be better? Let us know! Email us directly, or take the Help Us Build a Better BNET poll on BNET Intercom.