What Editors Do

Talk to the Newsroom:
Assistant Managing Editor Richard L. Berke

Assistant Managing Editor Richard L. Berke" type="hidden">

Richard L. Berke, assistant managing editor for news at The Times, is answering reader questions this week about the newspaper's news coverage and the selection of articles for the front page. Questions may be sent to asktheeditors@nytimes.com.

Rodney White for The New York Times

Richard L. Berke

Mr. Berke started at the paper as night editor in the Washington Bureau 20 years ago. He was the national political correspondent for more than a decade, and also covered Congress, the White House and other beats before becoming the Washington Editor. He moved to New York at the start of 2005 to be an associate managing editor, and later assumed his current position. Before joining The Times, he was a reporter for several years at the Baltimore Evening Sun.

Several other editors have answered questions in this column in previous weeks:

• Bill Keller, executive editor
• Jonathan Landman, deputy managing editor
• Laura Chang, science editor
• Larry Ingrassia, business editor
• Alison Mitchell, education editor
• Sam Sifton, culture editor
• Michelle McNally, assistant managing editor for photography
• Gerald Marzorati, assistant managing editor and editor of The Times Magazine.
• Kevin McKenna, technology editor.
• Tom Jolly, sports editor

These discussions will continue in future weeks with other Times editors.

Who Needs Editors?

Q. Why do stories written by reporters need editing? Editors are in a newsroom, not in the field. Why would an editor know better than a reporter what is true and correct about a story? Yes, I know, stories need to have correct spelling and grammar, but beyond that it seems editors should keep their hands off the material. If editors are so important, why isn't their byline on the story too?

--Alex Newberry, Sarasota, Fla.

A. Many reporters here would say, Amen! Some reporters pride themselves on filing their stories so close to deadline that editors are left with no time to meddle with their work. (It's not a practice we encourage.) When I was a reporter I would sometimes chafe at what seemed like batteries of editors trying to tamper with my prose. But usually I was grateful for the help. If really smart people can weigh in and make suggestions that improve your article -- and make you look smarter -- you'd be foolish not to appreciate the help.

Now that I'm an editor, I have an even clearer perspective. First off, while some reporters produce perfect copy that barely needs editing, you should see some of the drafts from other reporters. I won't name any names, but let's just say that some of our most enterprising and dogged reporters aren't necessarily as talented in the writing department, while some of our most skillful stylists aren't always the most successful reporters. Not everyone can do it all, especially since the reporting and editing process is demanding work under intense deadlines. (Plus, the workload is only getting more challenging, with reporters contributing to our Web site around the clock.)

Editors can bring a fresh eye to an article. They can remind a reporter to step back, and explain to readers why the particular story is important. They can prod a reporter to do a little more interviewing and a little more work to make sure they get the full story. They can tell reporters who are in love with their own prose that actually, if you trim 200 of their precious words out of an 1100-word story, it might actually make the story tighter and easier to read. They can suggest to the reporter that maybe the anecdotal opening is a little slow and that they should come up with something snappier. While most of the best ideas come from reporters -- they are the ones out in the field, talking to people -- editors can sometimes see a bigger picture and suggest ideas that aren't as obvious to reporters in the thick of it.

Broadly speaking, editors can also be advocates for a particular story to actually get published, and try to cheer on the reporters, while pushing them to do their best work. But successful editors know not to go overboard. Even when changes are necessary, they know to work with the reporters to retain as much of their writing styles as possible. And they need to trust the reporters and give them the freedom and encouragement to do their best work.

That said, I don't want to overstate the role of editors. One some articles, we don't need to do a thing.

So if the effort is often collaborative, why don't editors get bylines? Because for all that we do to try to make pieces even better, the heart of the story -- the reporting, the writing -- is the work of the reporter. Maybe the byline is in a part a reward for dealing with all the torment from editors!

You give up that instant ego gratification when you become an editor. But you learn to live vicariously though others. This may sound silly, but sometimes I still run to the front door to pick up the morning paper when one of our reporters has a story on A1 that I particularly liked or that I in some way helped to get out front. Even without my own byline, I can still get a thrill out of seeing a terrific story pop up on A1. (And as an editor, I don't have to actually report or write the story, only to be tormented by demanding editors. It's easier being the tormenter!)