The Wall Street Journal on editing

With the credit markets in a tailspin and the southern half of the US in flames and out of water, you would think the Wall Street Journal would have a busy enough news day. Apparently not. It was time for the WSJ to dust off the editing-is-just-so-dang-easy piece.

Lee Gomes is apparently no David Pogue. At least when Pogue oversimplifies my job in print, it’s fun to read and accurate enough for the masses. Gomes’ piece has no information of any interest to any editor, producer, or post production supervisor. Well, may the post supervisors will get a kick out of it.

In describing the modern, streamlined approach to feature film post, Gomes writes:

Right on the set, the digitized film went into a computer; after that, just a handful of people were involved. While the skills were different, coordinating the work of these editors and others wasn’t much more different than what happens in an average office with a typical PowerPoint presentation.

Oh really? I’ve done the consulting thing, and with it the whole PowerPoint to end all PowerPoint presentations. You know what, Mr. Gomes? If it’s that easy, I suggest you ditch journalism and become a post director at one of the networks. The pay’s a lot better, and you seem to think you could handle it.

Can’t wait until Gomes writes about managing SIVs. Now that’s something apparently any kindergartener can handle.

One Thought on “The Wall Street Journal on editing

  1. Here is an article from Broadcast Engineering:

    regarding asking journalists to edit their own footage.

    This article is far more thoughtful than the article you reference, however the belief that video editing is easier because of computers is in both, and I think misses the point. Editing is a craft at least, and in the hands of a few, an art.

    Word processors did make writing easier.

    Word processors did not make writing WELL easier.

    The same can be said for non-linear tools.

Leave a Reply

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: