Copy Editor

I know you guys can't pay people/are losing checks at the mail place, but can you at least have someone on staff to proof articles before they go up? I know time is of the essence when posting online. That said, you have a main page writer confusing "its" and "it's" and burying the lede with a bevy of personal anecdotes that have little to no relevance to the topic in question. This is shoddy and embarrassing. It makes all the really good work people like Renn are still doing look bad. That simple grammatical mistakes are being allowed to appear and reappear truly makes it look like whoever's editor in chief doesn't give a shit. 

Okay, going to try and be less douchey, but it's more than just scanning for typos/grammar/editorial mistakes. It's sentence structure, adjusting the flow of the piece while still maintaining the author's voice, things like that. For example, I'd like to see CHUD get away from the asides and footnotes. More often than not, they're unnecessary and they could just as easily be incorporated into the body of the piece.

As for "burying the lede/lead," there's a difference between the headline and the lede. If the two are the same -- if, for example, you tell us in the headline is that Spartacus is having its last season and do nothing more than say in the article that Spartacus is having its last season -- then, as a writer, you should step back and see if the piece is worth writing at all. 

Now, I will be a douche: I think the rise of sub-David Foster Wallace imitators and sons of Knowles who feel its necessary to infuse every single article with a "personal viewpoint" out of some obligation, no matter how boring or irrelevant that viewpoint may be, is strangling the form of online web criticism, but that's me. 

Because I was frustrated about an obvious downtick in quality, especially for a section of the site I care a ton about, when I made that initial post, and I wanted to try and clarify my initial post more diplomatically.

There is a way to put a point of view into an article or review without inserting your own personal anecdotes/use of the first person. Look at Ebert -- yes, he'll use the first person, but much of the time, he doesn't, and you still get his viewpoint/where he's coming from. Is it as easy? No, and that's why I think you've seen a rise of it with the rise of "the internet" as a primary source of news and information -- you're writing for speed, and it's easier to just fall into "this is what I think." But I think writing should be a challenge, and I think by taking a step back -- even one as simple as saying "Okay, let's not talk about me, let's talk about the work" -- richer and more interesting things can be said about art. 

Keep in mind, I'm also talking from my own experience here. I used to do first person all the time, and still do -- but when I push myself to express my voice without saying "This is what I think", I find I produce better content.