I got the future-of-editing blues

I love the Nats and am eager to see whether they’ll stick to their stated innings limit for ace Stephen Strasburg.

I happened upon this piece in the online Bleacher Report but got stopped by the paragraph in italics below. Two editing errors gave me the blues about the state of editing and the future of professional journalism, and I quit reading.

I know almost nothing about the Bleacher Report. Does this publication pay its correspondents? Does it have paid editors? I know it’s trendy for some aspiring professional writers to try to build name-recognition by giving their hard work away for nothing. I have no idea if that is the case with Joe Mikolai, the author of this Aug. 6 post.

I’m not criticizing his knowledge of baseball, pitching, the Nats or Strasburg. I’m not dissing his opinions or the quality of his reporting. (I do think some Nats fans may object to calling Jordan Zimmermann the “No. 2 pitcher,” but that’s not what I’m talking about.)

I’m just sorry an online publication that seems serious about its subject matter appears less concerned with competent writing.

Of course I may be all wet. The Bleacher Report may, in fact, have paid writers and editors. I know that as an editor I’ve missed errors I should have caught. Maybe there really was a copy editor here who just wasn’t at his or her best.

Still, this paragraph stopped me cold. Do you see the two writing errors I spotted?

Next, there is no precedence for what the Nationals are doing here. Their argument, it was recently revealed in an ESPN interview a few days ago with [manager Davey] Johnson, is to handle Strasburg the same way they did No. 2 pitcher Jordan Zimmermann, who also had Tommy John surgery and whom recovered quite nicely.

via Washington Nationals: Stephen Strasburg Owes It to Them to Re-Sign | Bleacher Report.

I’ll post my objections later.

Update: It’s later. Here’s the new post.

Permalink: http://news.fredericksburg.com/theredpen/2012/08/08/i-got-the-future-of-editing-blues/