Edit the NYTimes yourself.

August 20, 2017 3:18 PM

Think you have the editing skills to work for the New York Times? With the feature Copy Edit This!, Philip B. Corbett, The Times’s standards editor, has a number of editing challenges. Even better, there are point-and-click challenges every few weeks. Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
posted by zardoz (20 comments total)

Yes, I know the NYT style sheet doesn't recommend the Oxford comma, but it is wrong.

No, no and no. When I thought all my wonderful newspaper prose required commas all over the place, including Oxford commas, an editor disabused me of this notion by taking a very deep breath at every use. That cured me. I like the Oxford when it helps to clarify. Otherwise, no.
posted by etaoin at 3:57 PM on August 20, 2017 [5 favorites]

when I 100% correctly point out the lack of an Oxford comma

Same. I will forevermore view the NYTimes with suspicion.
posted by sutt at 3:58 PM on August 20, 2017

No, no and no

That to me reads like someone is saying "no" to a person named "no and no."
posted by Dip Flash at 4:13 PM on August 20, 2017 [34 favorites]

an editor disabused me of this notion by taking a very deep breath at every use.

Do people really stop reading and take a very deep breath every time there's a comma? Otherwise, I'm not sure what this is supposed to demonstrate.
posted by mrgoat at 4:26 PM on August 20, 2017 [11 favorites]

Is the New York Times still shutting down its stand-alone copy desk?
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 4:30 PM on August 20, 2017 [3 favorites]

Some context:

Using words including “betrayal,” “humiliating” and “covfefe” and suggesting that management had compared them to “dogs urinating on fire hydrants,” copy editors at the New York Times today let executive editor Dean Baquet and his heir apparent, Joseph Kahn, know exactly how they feel about taking the brunt of layoffs and buyouts as the Times expands its reporting ranks. The latest flare-up comes at a moment when the Times also is dealing with a libel lawsuit filed by former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin over a Times Op-Ed column erroneously linking her to violent attacks on public figures.

In a letter addressed to the two top editors and written under the letterhead of the NewsGuild’s NYT unit, they also included a plea for reconsideration of the plan to eliminate some 100 editors from their ranks.

I'd guess these "editing challenges" will constitute part of an effort to teach an expanded corps of reporters to copy edit their own stuff.
posted by jamjam at 4:35 PM on August 20, 2017 [6 favorites]

The thing that bugs me about these is that you don't get credit for alternate answers. In almost all of the passages, I usually find a few things that are incorrect to varying degrees.
posted by limeonaire at 5:16 PM on August 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

You get full marks in stealthbragging, though!
posted by Ian A.T. at 7:29 PM on August 20, 2017 [2 favorites]

As a former newspaper copy editor, I can tell you correcting grammar, usage and punctuation is only part of the job, and only part of what The Times has lost. I've seen some major errors (bigger than mechanics) already in the The Times in the past few weeks -- such as saying Elon Musks new Hyperloop would take people across the country in less than an hour.
posted by maurreen at 8:20 PM on August 20, 2017 [7 favorites]

"Put a comma where you take a breath" is a completely fake rule, and so is its reverse. I wish editors would take English linguistics classes. (Not that it matters when you have a style guide to follow, but it does matter when you're making pronouncements to other people.)

Anyway, great post. I'm sharing this with my other sick friends who will also enjoy it. Thanks!
posted by wintersweet at 8:51 PM on August 20, 2017 [8 favorites]

Oxford comma doctrinaires were taught thus by their mother, Ayn Rand, and God.
posted by rewil at 10:07 PM on August 20, 2017

Great post, and pretty fun! They're really trying to rid the world of whom/who mistakes, and for that I am thankful.
posted by klausman at 11:12 PM on August 20, 2017

My very first thought was "Wow, this is right up my alley!" And my very second thought was "Maybe I this is a sign I should stop putting off my own, paid, copywriting work."
posted by lollymccatburglar at 11:56 PM on August 20, 2017 [1 favorite]

Yes, I know the NYT style sheet doesn't recommend the Oxford comma, but it is wrong.

I agree. And so do the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.
posted by The Bellman at 7:21 AM on August 21, 2017 [1 favorite]

Listen. No. There are only two rules in editing:

1. Make the meaning behind the writing as clear as possible.
2. Make it conform to house style as best as you possibly can, so you can earn a living.

That's it. Everything else is handwaving. The only comma rule to obey is "does it help the sentence make sense?"

There are cases where the Oxford comma hinders understanding. In those cases, you recast the sentence.

There are cases where the lack of the Oxford comma hinders understanding. In those cases, you recast the sentence.

"We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin" is a bad sentence even in house styles call for the omission of the serial comma. "I love my mother, Ayn Rand, and God" is a bad sentence even in house styles that call for the Oxford comma.

A preference for one style is perfectly fine. Yay, grammar nerdery. Joking about it is even perfectly fine, though to be honest at this point the jokes have become repetitive. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking one way is correct 100 percent of the time.
posted by rewil at 9:17 AM on August 21, 2017 [6 favorites]

When I thought all my wonderful newspaper prose required commas all over the place, including Oxford commas, an editor disabused me of this notion by taking a very deep breath at every use. That cured me.

I believe you that you used to generally use too many commas, but that's not a good reason not to use the Oxford comma. Punctuation doesn't always correspond to pauses when reading aloud. For instance "X, Y, and Z" should be read aloud the same whether or not the final comma is there. So that argument against the Oxford comma just doesn't make sense.

I like the Oxford when it helps to clarify. Otherwise, no.

The fact that it clarifies some of the time is a reason to use it all of the time. Otherwise, your punctuation will be inconsistent and confusing.
posted by John Cohen at 3:01 PM on August 21, 2017 [1 favorite]

"I love my mother, Ayn Rand, and God" is a bad sentence even in house styles that call for the Oxford comma.

But you don't need to break a policy of using the Oxford comma in order to clarify that sentence.

Assuming your mom isn't Ayn Rand, you can reword it: "I love God, Ayn Rand, and my mother."

If your mom is Ayn Rand, you can reword it: "I love my mother, Ayn Rand; I also love God."
posted by John Cohen at 3:05 PM on August 21, 2017 [1 favorite]

The fact that it clarifies some of the time is a reason to use it all of the time.

A reason, perhaps, but not a persuasive one. Not in situations where every character matters due to physical restrictions.

Again, if you are not working in a situation where that applies, then do what you will.
posted by rewil at 3:17 PM on August 21, 2017

Oxford comma doctrinaires were taught thus by their mother, Ayn Rand, and God.
And so do the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.

These kinds of pro-Oxford comma examples drive me insane, because you can absolutely construct a parallel construction against the Oxford comma.

If you don't use the Oxford comma, there is a clear difference between:

"I killed JFK, the stripper and Stalin" --> JFK is clearly not the stripper
"I killed JFK, the stripper, and Stalin" --> JFK is the stripper, since the second comma can only be the closing comma of an appositive phrase, since it can't be the last comma in a list, AKA the Oxford comma


But if you insist on the Oxford comma, the following sentence is the only possibility and is just as unclear/ambiguous as those pro-Oxford comma smug sentences:

"I killed JFK, the stripper, and Stalin" --> did you mean to say three different people? But oh ho ho, looks like you're implying that JFK is the stripper! Clearly looks like the Oxford comma leads to funny ass grammar problems!


In seriousness though, both the pro- and anti-Oxford comma examples just come from clever placement of an inappropriate appositive phrase (the stripper(s)).
posted by andrewesque at 7:38 PM on August 21, 2017

I can't get through even one of these challenges without thinking, "Dammit, I see no point to doing this if I'm not getting paid."
posted by panglos at 11:17 PM on August 21, 2017 [3 favorites]