And that is how it should be, for they accept their unglamorous anonymity, toiling into the night, forming, shaping, designing and correcting a link in the chain that brings the creations of reporters and photographers to the newspaper page.

Armed with an encyclopedic knowledge of life and an archival mind of history and background, these generally senior, experienced hands man the watchtower of words as protectors of the language, parrying the thrusts of redundancy, tautology and the invasion of ugly Americanisms.

They are guardians of grammar and sentries of spelling, charged with ferreting out excesses, errors and inconsistencies — with, it must be said, varying degrees of success — hoping to ensure, dear reader, you never have to ask, “What does that mean?”

They must know enough of the law to navigate clear of illegalities, contempt and defamation, lest the paper finds itself paying out millions in damages.

Sub-editors take the written word and expand or contract it as required — who else can make 200 words say exactly what 400 did?

And have you noticed there are always just enough words to fill a newspaper? You can thank sub-editors for that.

They also possess the skill to summarise a complicated issue in a headline of six words or less.

But the asteroid has struck — newspapers, we are told, can no longer afford sub-editors.

I would argue newspapers cannot afford not to have sub-editors, but those who paid my wages for 47 years would be equally adamant I am biased and old-fashioned.

You, dear reader, will be the judge when the last sub-editor has left the building.

So farewell to the subs — newspapers won’t be the same.

— ANDREW HIPWELL,

Sub-editor, retired, Lavington