Reading 1

(This blog is about the first four readings about copyediting for Jan. 23)

I think that this first one noting the importance of copy editors mostly labels the editor as the mediator between the reader and writer. Sometimes an article will make total sense to him/her but when read by another person makes no sense at all. I think that this reading makes a good point that the copy editor is the (almost) objective reader that can catch ambiguity and what may confuse someone else.
Since we're basically all going to have to be a rim-man at some point, I think that it's good training even though it's not necessarily someone's dream job. What the third reading does often forget is that some people live for correcting other people's grammar and could be someone's dream. Its advice to actively pursue editing, though, is good. I have learned more editing in my high school and now than I ever have from being taught the AP style book or in a classroom. Also because we are all journalism majors, the advice to start small is often overlooked. What I think people forget is that there are way more of us than there are jobs. We will still have to start small.
The last reading makes an interesting point about the little changes that copy editors often make. I've definitely been abused for wanting to change something late in the game because of syntax or grammar that another editor or writer doesn't see the use to change. Not only is the copy editor an underpaid job, it's often underappreciated. The layout part is probably the best, too, because I can see what I've done. The job is more clearly recognized. I think that this backs up the idea that journalists have to do much more now just to be considered on the same level as before.