In his post last night, Mickey Kaus criticized former LA Times editor John Carroll for having too many copy editors during his tenure.
My position: A good copy editor will make your copy better--but only on rare occasions will it be enough better to justify the delay and hassle, let alone the copy editor's salary. And good copy editors are hard to find--the best quickly move on to other jobs these days. Those that stay, especially in big organizations like the LAT, are too often repositories of self-justifying pedantry! Usually they just make copy duller.
Agreed - but what Mickey does not address - is who exactly does the fact checking for the LA Times articles - and editorials? Are those the 1,000 editors that Ken Auletta says work at the Times?
If so -- then the LA Times needs to hire at least another 2,000 more since the current 1,000 are - clearly - not enough.