Saturday, December 1, 2007
Online editing
It seems like in the drive to get news online faster, copy editing has gone out the door. I can't count the number of times I have gone on the East Valley Tribune's and Arizona Republic's Web sites and seen clear libel or numerous mistakes that copy editors would have fixed if they had read the stories before they were published on the Web. In newspapers' effort to be first, they have sidestepped the important role that copy editors play in keeping stories accurate, complete and clear. I've seen so many instances where someone has been "arrested for" a crime, which is clearly libelous. Newspapers need to come up with a system where stories filter through the copy desk before they are put online; and I know the Tribune is moving toward that goal and the Republic does have people around the clock putting stories online. Just because the story isn't in print, doesn't mean the newspaper has any less accountability for making that piece accurate and clear. Though copy editors traditionally work at night, perhaps even one person working a graveyard shift can curb many of the mistakes that make their way into stories put directly online. Web publication can be even more problematic in that those stories never go away. Any time someone searches for or comes across an online story, the mistakes will still be there, and that's a huge problem for newspapers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree.
I think the problem we're running in to here is simply that the internet outpaces our ability to keep up.
News hits the internet -- on a blog or site like YouTube -- often before the "official" news sites have an opportunity to investigate the story fully. This puts them in the uncomfortable position of either being scooped by people with video phones, or getting the information wrong -- in which case the paper can be hit with a libel suit.
Neither of these is a good option.
I think this kind of links in with my post re Tim McGuire's blog: is citizen journalism replacing professional journalism? If it is, WHY is this happening? Is it simply that people can't (or won't) wait for facts to be confirmed? Or is it that everyone has a desire for their 15 minutes of fame, and so will publish defamitory or libelous information on the internet, regardless of how it might injure someone?
I think the biggest mistake we as journalists can make is to knuckle under to the mighty internet god that demands our allegiance before we've had the opportunity to proofread a story. Our job as journalists it to tell a story -- but to tell it accurately. I think sooner or later people will get tired of information that may be sensational, but may not be correct.
Or perhaps I am giving our audience too much credit.
Post a Comment