Janet Albrechtsen re-dux, the fixed opening pars, the lack of sub-editors and the future of digital content.

While on the subject of Janet Albrechtsen, the deplorable subbing of her opening pars in her column today surely indicate where newspapers are heading.

The first three pars of The unreasoning fearmongers has now been fixed, so that they read:

And the prize for giving vacuous prizes goes to...the Left.

Last week John Pilger delivered a speech after becoming the 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize. Predictably, he railed against the war in Afghanistan. There are no terrorist training grounds there, he said. No mention of Al Qaeda from Pilger. He railed against the suffering on the “besieged people of Gaza”. No mention of the role of Hamas from Pilger.

And then he railed against Australia’s immigration policy and the “concentration camp on Christmas Island.” No mention that the 78 Sri Lankans on board the Oceanic Viking are determined to take up residence on Christmas Island.

The vacuity of the thoughts remain, including the vacuous prize for vacuity, but the coherence of the presentation is improved.

But it makes me wonder what Chairman Rupert hopes to be selling in his quest to charge for online content.

In the old days - here any passing youngsters can close their ears and their minds, as yet another old fart joins Mark Day in yearning for the old days - a sub-editor would have caught this kind of elementary slip long before ink hit paper, and if he didn't he or she might well have been sent off to tend the shipping columns for a while to instill in them a desire for accuracy.

A few in the game might already have caught this editor's tearing apart of a Toronto Star memo with a little helpful editorial advice:

You'll need to click on it to see it at readable size, and if you can't be bothered, you can click here on Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge to get the full story.

The point being that in the old days subbies did immensely valuable work, even if we all chafed at their strictures and their cutting ways. These days, the presentation standard in hard copy is deplorable, and the presentation online is abysmal, an error-laden example of the way forum standards can infiltrate what were once solemn, staid upholders of decent English and rational measured argument.

The tendency to tabloid and to trollumnist reader-baiting by commentariat columnists gives this site its fun, but truth to tell I'd give it all away in an instant if the much-heralded paywall was designed to improve the standard of what is now filling the intertubes to overflowing.

But of course it won't, and things are going from bad to worse in the mainstream media, with the likes of Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt showing the way downhill.

As for the new layout in The Australian, it's abysmal. Take a look at this screen cap of a typical page, or go here for its latest incarnation:

However you cut it, it's awkward, blocky and ugly. The sub-editor's art is to take you into the page, draw your attention to what you might find interesting, and invite you to read it, in an attractive and beguiling way.

At least the National Times arm of the SMH understands the principle, even if they sometimes fail in the execution. The layout for The Australian in its opinion pages is a disaster of simple-minded listing, where the space is now divided in such a way that the right third can be devoted to various forms of advertising.

Don't start me on the forced video ads on Fairfax sites - we could be here all year - but the question is whether a paywall would take away any of this intrusive advertising. The answer is most likely no, in the same way as advertising.

In the meantime standards continue to spiral downhill.

Well after sending up Dame Slap for her incoherent opening sentences, I felt it polite to put up her official version. But why does Chairman Rupert think the world is waiting with baited breath (oh alright you pedants, bated breath) to pay for typos, errors, mis-sepllings and sloppiness, like sloppy metaphors in a broken bucket, with a hole in the bottom and no straw, and no time or money or subbies to fix it.

Bloggers do it for free ... pay for professionals to do it for a hefty premium? Only if you're perversty is insatable ....

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza,
There's a hole.

Then fix it dear Rupert, dear Rupert, dear Rupert,
Then fix it dear Rupert, dear Rupert, fix it.

With what should I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I fix it, dear Liza, with what?

With a straw, dear Rupert, dear Rupert, dear Rupert,
With a straw, dear Rupert, dear Rupert, with a straw.

Oh enough already, you get the feeble point. On with the original:

But the straw is too long, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The straw is too long, dear Liza, too long.

Then cut it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Then cut it dear Henry, dear Henry, cut it!

With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what shall I cut it, dear Liza, with what?

With an ax, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With an ax, dear Henry, an ax.

But the ax is too dull, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The ax is too dull, dear Liza, too dull.

Then, sharpen it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Then sharpen it dear Henry, dear Henry, sharpen it!

With what should I sharpen it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I sharpen, dear Liza, with what?

With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With a stone, dear Henry, dear Henry, a stone.

But the stone is too dry, dear Liza, dear Liza,
The stone is too dry, dear Liza, too dry.

Then wet it, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
Then wet it dear Henry, dear Henry, wet it.

With what should I wet it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I wet it, dear Liza, with what?

With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
With water, dear Henry, dear Henry, with water.

But how shall I get it?, dear Liza, dear Liza,
But how shall I get it?, dear Liza, with what?

In the bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
In the bucket, dear Henry, dear Henry, in the bucket!

But there's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.
There's a hole.