Since you asked. Chris wanted to know what type of editing the desk was doing at the 'horn that should be done by section editors, or something like that. My reply (I'm sorry it's really long):

 Here's what i said exactly: "The editing itself is like 10 billion
 times easier than what I was doing at The Shorthorn, because these
 professionals know what they're doing and have been doing it for a
 long time. At the 'horn I was doing a lot of content editing, but here
 it's more style and basic language stuff, which leaves more time for
 writing awesome headlines." There are several times where all I do to
 a story is verify facts, because the stuff is so clean and it reads
 good.

 A lot of times at the 'horn editors would not read through stories
 after they finished editing them to make sure their edits helped. We'd
 get things with obviously wrong grammar or punctuation or no
 punctuation. It's mentally taxing when stories are sent over that
 contain text that just stop mid-sentence. Or when a paragraph is
 pretty much verbatim the quote that follows. Often, I'd hear an editor
 say "that's what copy editors are for" or "they'll fix all that stuff,
 so don't worry about it." Things like that give the appearance that
 the section editor doesn't take the story seriously. Just because copy
 editors are suppose to catch mistakes, doesn't mean it's ok to let
 mistakes through.

 At least half the time I was addressing issues involving content, not
 language (obvious questions unanswered, story structure, buried ledes,
 no focus, no relevance). Although I believe copy editors should be
 able to identify and know how to address these things, I think that
 should really be done by the assigning editor. I think that because
 most reporters don't really understand the full purpose of the copy
 desk, they may sometimes feel either belittled or apathetic in regards
 to information requested by the desk.

 I also felt like i was making too many judgment calls (realizing a
 12-inch story is really a brief, the top story isn't a story at all)
 as a copy editor. And because i was just a copy editor and didn't see
 any stories until late in the evening, it would be too late to make
 big changes like those even if I could get someone to agree with me.

 I think a big struggle is reporting event coverage and meetings.
 Especially with those assignments, it seems reporters are taught to
 write what they wrote in their notebook instead of what happened that
 was newsworthy. And section editors should give more of an angle on
 stories like those. Editing a story that's a play by play of a meeting
 is just arduous.

 If you're interested, I've kept copies of everything I've read for the
 shorthorn for the past two years (copies of before I read them and
 after) on the computers in the newsroom. You're welcome to (or i can
 sometime) look through any of my folders labeled "originals" and
 "edits" to look for examples.

 I think a lot of the frustrations I had that made me feel overwhelmed
 at times had to do with what seemed to be the lack of common sense. I
 understand that it's hard for journalists to look at their work from
 an outsider's perspective, but I really think section editors should
 totally take that approach with the content at some point. Honestly,
 sometimes an editor would make me feel like my opinion really didn't
 matter because they were too close to the story and knew they were
 right or understood something that I didn't, which is completely
 backwards. Section editors should take every bit of advice from a copy
 editor to heart because we are basically the reader they're writing
 for.

 As for training, my advice is to always train section editors and copy
 editors together. They need to know what each of them is really
 suppose to be editing for. Basically, I think section editors should
 really be responsible for making sure all the information is in a
 story. And copy editors are responsible for making sure the
 information is understandable. All editors should be required to know
 Shorthorn style. Section editors need to be more specific in angles
 for story assignments. This will make them better prepared to answer
 questions copy editors have. Hopefully, this will provide better
 structured and more focused stories.

 Copy editors should never have to ask what the point of a story is
 (though I did this too often), because that means the reader is asking
 what the point of the story is. Section editors should address those
 questions before it ever makes it to the desk.

 I want to stress that these are not issues I've had with any single
 staff member I've worked with, but are consistent issues I've observed
 in the years I've worked there especially while I was working as Copy
 Desk Chief.

 If you want to share your training approach for this semester with me,
 I'd be happy to contribute on any specifics you have based on my
 experience with The Shorthorn.

 That's my forty-five cents for now. Hope it helps some.

 Erika

 P.S. I really do love The Shorthorn!

His reply was that I was "spot on." And of course, I remember a million other things I should have included later on.

This is I think an honest and fair
assessment of where we are at The Shorthorn. It's also a good sense of
what the dividing line is between assigning editor and desk editor. You
aren't shirking the responsibility of fixing the story, but at the same
time you're kept from doing what you need to do.