Outsourcing of subediting and layout by major publishers – among them Australia’s Fairfax Media and APN News & Media – created its own minor outrage: Now UK-based media commentator Roy Greenslade has raised the question of whether we need subs at all, writes Peter Coleman.

But the “I don't need a sub to get in the way” argument of an educated blogger – which led to a lively debate when reported on the 'UK Press Gazette' website – isn’t persuasive. And it recalls the “don’t need typographers/designers/artists/other professionals” rantings of the early days of desktop publishing.

Remember when everyman-and-his-dog, presented with a PC, PageMaker and the standard 35 type fonts was suddenly an expert at a job honed by generations of craftsmen?

I met someone recently who said they worked as a “typesetter” … a title I reasoned had gone out with the need to keep the lino pot filled and the disser from jamming. Perhaps ‘typographer’ would be more indicative of what she really did … or are there really people still out there who simply re-key the writings of others, as the trade unions of the 1980s would have had us continue to do.

Typesetting is dead as surely as much of the work undertaken by the old prepress trade houses has also gone by the way to savvy designers with a bunch of skills in Adobe’s Creative Suite.

But who’s to deal with the idiot inaccuracies of journalists – many of whom, especially, it seems on the metropolitan dailies – are still learning their job?

Forget for a moment the role of ‘improver’, a job title beloved of some publishers who employ a raft of trainees who could nose out the basic facts of a story, but hadn’t the faintest idea how to string them together.

And forget the wonders of Word … and the Microsoft tool system which thinks it knows best how to spell and arrange the content, syntax and grammar of each piece you write. And will score your efforts as well.

‘Intelligent’ software has a way to go before it’s intelligent enough to do the job of a good subeditor.

And Roy Greenslade’s comments that subs are "a layer that can be eliminated" – at a conference in London – are not going to change that. His argument is that some, such as creative headline writers might be needed, but most are not.

"I produce copy that goes straight on screen,” he says. “Why can't anyone else do that?”

Perhaps what he visualises is a shorter chain of responsibility: That if there’s no subeditor ‘safety net’, journalists will be more careful of what they write and (in the case of websites) publish.

A bit like the old subbing adage that you put a byline on a story as often to tell the world who wrote this piece of rubbish, as to credit its virtuosity.

In fact, with outsourcing a key conference topic, it was really the layout function which was in question. Layout “to a template” – the norm for local, regional and “serious” newspapers – could be “sent elsewhere,” Greenslade argued. And the “creative people” on popular newspapers such as the UK’s ‘Sun’ were a minority.

Most design can be done in another country, he argues.

Well, yes, we know that. Australia’s AAP Pagemasters is putting pages together for the London ‘Daily Telegraph’ in Sydney, for example.

Indeed making an outsourcing contractor directly (and competitively) responsible for the work he submits can bring quality improvements as well as cost savings.

But with ‘proofreading’ (another archaic term?) gone, are we really ready to do without subs? We think not.