What is wrong with having a bad sub?

Hi, sorry about the complete lack of post in a while, but I've been hard at work preparing a post that should give the aspiring journo out there a reason to try their hand at subbing. You see, every so often you write a story you think is good, and then you run it through a set of subs and it actually comes out worse than when it came in.

Sadly, this has happened to me on more than a few occasions. Perhaps the one that is freshest in my mind is a story I wrote a while back on a new type of security camera. I'm not going to say my article was perfect (it never is) , but it was a good piece of writing.

Below, is the copy I submitted to the subs.

===================================================================
My heart was already in San Francisco, but my body was stuck in a security checkpoint. My eyes were staring at the bald patch at the gentleman in front of me, my feet were shuffling forward inch-by-inch and my thumbs were left twiddling.

We've all had to wait in security before, as a multitude of people pass through the scanners, with the line moving like salmon upstream. We've all had to wait as that one particular person didn't quite grasp the concept of not taking metallic objects through the scanner

You start to wonder why this sadistic airport has windows. It's like being told you can only take out that Ferarri in first gear.

Luckily, some clever British company, ThruVision, has come up with a new security imaging system.

Based on some of the technology used in deep space exploration, the T5000 Security Imaging System is able to 'see' under the clothes of people standing 25 metres away. The people can even be moving, reducing bottlenecks at security checkpoints.

But how can this new fangled system do that and still not emit huge pulses of energy? Well, instead of the traditional X-Ray that emits a low level of radiation, the T5000 is a passive system that picks up T-Rays.

T-Rays are small amounts of energy given off naturally by all materials, including animals, people and plants. These emissions can travel through smoke, and more physical objects such as clothing. The T5000 merely picks up these energy signatures and uses them to form an image that can reveal hidden objects. Nifty Huh?

That all means that the line can keep on moving and detect objects under a person's clothes, well before they reach a security checkpoint. You can imagine the relief of not having to be subjected to the X-Ray ritual anymore, but using T-Rays can make security operations a lot more efficient.

As CEO of ThruVision, Clive Beattie explains: "The T5000 dramatically extends the security surveillance envelope for ThruVision's passive body scanning products used at important sites and events. The ability to see both metallic and non-metallic items on people out to 25m is certainly a key capability that will enhance any comprehensive security system deployment."

Some of you may be concerned that the ability to 'see under' clothing from 25 metres away may just be humilating as a long range strip search, but ThruVision is quick to point out that the T5000 doesn't see any 'surface anatmical effects'.

Indeed, news of yet another type of security camera may just have some civil libertarians on edge, and with good reason too.

For example, in the UK (where the T5000 was concieved), contains about 20 per cent of the worlds CCTV Cameras with a total of about 4.2 Million installed. That's about one camera for every fourteen people in the entire UK.

Yet CCTV systems, despite record installation numbers, have not been a total success. You'd think that plonking masses of cameras everywhere would have effectively stopped crime, but in a study publiched by the Home Office in 2002 found that "CCTV had no effect on violent crime"

So is the implementation of another type of camera in the form of the T5000 going to stop all crime? More than likely, no.

Yet as I think back on all the times I've been stuck at security waiting for the line to move even an inch, the T5000 imaging camera seems like an attractive prospect. Indeed, for any traveller, the ability to waltz through security is a welcome change from staring at the bald spot of the gentleman in front of you.
===================================================================

It's hardly going to win a Walkley, but it's a nice little article about a security camera that's somewhat well written and wouldn't look out of place in a general interest mag.

Now see what happened when the subs got their hands on the story.

===================================================================
A camera that can see under people's clothes? Not as seedy as it sounds. James McGrath investigates the T5000 imaging camera.

My heart was already in San Francisco, but my body was stuck at a security checkpoint. My eyes were staring at the bald patch on the gentleman in front of me, my feet were shuffling forward inch by slow inch and I was left twiddling my thumbs.

We’ve all had to wait at security, as a multitude of people pass through the scanners, and the line snakes forward slowly at a snail’s pace. And we’ve all had to wait and watch that one particular person who doesn’t quite grasp the concept of not taking metallic objects through the scanner.

You start to wonder which sadist designed the airport with windows so you could see outside without any hope of getting there anytime soon. It’s like being told you can take that Ferrari out ... but only in first gear.

Luckily, a clever British company, ThruVision, has come up with a new security imaging system. It’s called the T5000 Security Imaging System and is based on technology used in deep space exploration.

In essence the T5000 is a camera that can ‘see’ under people's clothes even if they're standing up to 25 metres away. It even works if the people in question are moving. This means that a line can keep moving while the camera detects objects under people’s clothes well before they reach the security checkpoint. It’s thought this new system will help reduce crowd bottlenecks at security checkpoints.

But how does the newfangled system do all this? And will it emit huge pulses of unhealthy energy in the process? Well, the answer to the second question is 'no' it will not, because unlike traditional X-Rays that emit low levels of radiation, the T5000 is a passive system that picks up terahertz rays, or T-rays.

T-Rays are a small amount of energy given off naturally by all materials, including animals, people and plants. These emissions can travel through smoke, and more physical objects such as clothing. They are, however, blocked by water and metal. The T5000 merely picks up these energy signatures and uses them to form an image that can reveal hidden objects. Nifty huh?

Now some may be concerned that the T5000’s ability to 'see under’ clothing may act as a long range strip search, but ThruVision is quick to point out that the T5000 doesn’t see any ‘surface anatomical effects’.

CEO of ThruVision, Clive Beattie explained how the T5000 could also make security operations more efficient: “The T5000 dramatically extends the security surveillance envelope for ThruVision’s passive body scanning products used at important sites and events. The ability to see both metallic and non-metallic items on people out to 25m is certainly a key capability that will enhance any comprehensive security system deployment.”

So is the implementation of the T5000 going to effectively stop all crime? Most likely not. If we recall, CCTV cameras were supposed to stop crime. The UK (where the T5000 was conceived), contains about 20 percent of the world’s CCTV cameras with a total of 4.2 million installed. That’s about one camera for every 14 people. You’d think plonking masses of cameras everywhere would have effectively stopped crime, but a 2002 study published by the UK Home Office found that “CCTV had no effect on violent crime”.

If the T5000 lives up to expectations the welcome change for all those who’ve ever been stuck at security waiting for the line to move forward by even an inch, will be the prospect of waltzing through without having to spend hours studying the bald spot on the gentleman in front.
===================================================================

The guts of the story are still there, but any writer will be able to spot the glaring changes made, and be horrified by the subbing work on this story.

That is why the future journalists need more subs. We need people either going straight into cadetship or going through uni to not only think in terms of being a good journo, but also in terms of being a good sub. If you can bring both skills to the table, then you have more than a shot at landing a job.