Number Error

I visited my hometown this weekend, and as I was reading the Peoria Journal Star, I found a blatant number mistake in the article “When’s a good Night Out Against Crime?” Along with being an extremely lame and boring story about when an event called “Night Out Against Crime” should be held, the reporter and editors did not pay attention to a series of percentages regarding a survey that is being conducted.

The seventh paragraph of the article said,
“The survey has received 43 responses already; 46 percent prefer a return to the early August date, 39 percent preferred September and 18 percent prefer a nonspecific other date.”

After doing some simple addition, I figured out that 46+39+18=103, not 100.

Not only do the numbers not match up, I think 43 responses are not enough to mention in the story. Who cares that 43 people think this? Peoria has a population of about 130,000 people. If I had to report on these results, I would have simply stated, “So far, the majority prefer…” This just goes to show that if numbers are going to be used to support a story, they need to be correct. These are not just numbers that are confusing; they are numbers that are absolutely wrong. My guess is that the reporter received a press release with this information and did not double check it himself. For the summation to be off by 3 percentage points is a big mistake for a publication to make.

(On a side note, the verb tense in this sentence is not constant; the author switched from “prefer” to “preferred” back to “prefer”)

Yay for editing

I recently started an internship at Alumni Magazine here on campus. Although it’s not paid (bummer), I’ve started to greatly appreciate proper editing. Last semester, I worked at the Daily Illini, and my stories were published after two or three edits. I understand that at a newspaper, editors are more rushed and deadlines have to be made, but I often felt like more changes to my stories were needed. However, at the magazine, stories go through a series of edits. In fact, I have proofread stories more than once. I know I may sound weird saying this, but I really enjoy the editing process. Yes, I said enjoy. Here are two mistakes I barely caught while proofreading various stories.

1. Communism- (pg 206 of the AP stylebook under political parties and philosophies)

-Capitalize Communist, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Republican, Socialist ect. when they refer to a specific party or its members. Lowercase these words when they refer to political philosophy.

2. up-to-date- (adj) and it is indeed hyphenated.

Both of these were errors in stories that were proofread by multiple people. I know that these were relatively small mistakes, but they needed to be caught in order to maintain the publication’s credibility. It’s hard to describe, but it was a really good feeling finding these errors and fixing them. More than likely my find will go unnoticed when the issue is published, but it makes me proud to know that I contributed to a story to make it as perfect as possible. Many of you are probably thinking “What a nerd,” and maybe I am, but I have come to discover the love of proper editing.

Thanks for reading. I'll continue to keep to up-to-date with my editing discoveries.

Outsourcing editing

John McIntre couldn’t have said it better in his article, “Getting What You Pay For.” Outsourcing editing is ludicrous. I want to know what journalists actually think this is a good idea, and if there are still some out there, please change professions. In my opinion, copy editors are arguably the most important piece of the writing process, especially editors who work at the same publication. Like McIntre stated, there is more to the copy editing process than simply changing language.

This article makes me think of Jayson Blair, Steven Glass and other journalists who were caught plagiarizing their stories. It just shows that copy editors are needed to fact check and question writers so publications can keep their credibility. I know, as a reader, I would not trust any publication that decided to ship the copy editing process to another country. For instance, copy editor from India would not be able to tell if a reporter was exaggerating their story. Whereas, a local copy editor might get a “feeling” or a “hunch” that something isn’t right.

Some may argue that reporters should be able to edit themselves or that reporters are more important than the editors at the publication. Well, think again. Writers are not perfect. (Just look at my previous blog entries; I’m sure there are mistakes). When I was a reporter for the Daily Illini, I appreciated the editors going through my stories multiple times. I was sometimes rushed when writing my story to make a deadline, and because of this, errors were always found. It just proves that proper editing is imperative to any story. On this website, www.whyeditingmatters.org, created by the American Copy Editors Society, it shows what people are saying about copy editors. I thought it was interesting to read what others are thinking. Check it out.

A No-Paper Newspaper

“A No-Paper Newspaper: After years of hype, ‘e-newspapers’ are getting closer to reality. Can they save a shrinking industry?” by Daniel McGinn of Newsweek Magazine discusses what might soon become a reality in the newspaper industry.

Unlike Crosbie who thinks newspapers will soon diminish altogether, McGinn reports on how they may just take on a different form. McGinn discusses how Amazon has already developed the Kindle, an electronic reading devise; however, he said, “Instead of offering well-designed pages that entice readers to skim a story they might otherwise skip, today's e-newspapers merely list headlines or tops of articles, which makes it hard to decide what's worth reading.” Also, these e-readers are without color.

This article explains how several companies will soon launch a new type of e-reader with the dimensions of an 8.5-by-11-inch piece of paper, and unlike the Kindle, it will use a flexible, plastic screen that would not crack. To me, the thought of “electronic paper” blows my mind, and it is hard to picture this as a reality. Even if companies work out the cost issue, I do not see the public catching on to this invention.

I agree that it may be better for the environment, but there is a certain enjoyment experienced when reading an actual newspaper that could never be replaced by an electronic devise. Also, in my opinion, the dimensions of this paper are too small and would distract readers, even if there was a way to scroll and browse news stories. My last objection to this invention is that I absolutely hate reading long information off of an electronic screen. Sure, e-mails and short news articles are bearable, but the thought of reading a long article on a PC screen makes me cringe. In the future, I hope that I never have to wake up and go to my “e-newspaper” for the morning news.

Response to "Transforming American Newspapers"

When I finished reading “Transforming American Newspapers” by Vin Crosbie, I was bothered, to say the least. I even began reevaluating my own professional goals. When I graduate I want to work at a major newspaper or magazine; however, Vin Crosbie, a newspaper industry consultant, is telling me that newspapers are slowly dying without much of a solution. I knew before reading this article that newspaper readership was on the decline, but I seriously thought, like others I assume, that the putting content on the internet could be an answer. Crosbie stated that his position very clearly when he said, “Yet adding multimedia, convergence, interactivity, Web 2.0, and 'citizen journalism' to what their newspapers have always done aren't cures but merely balms and accessories. No matter how well intentioned those New Media prescriptions are, no matter how much more animated or responsive multimedia and interactivity can make daily newspapers, adding those will prove to be little more than analgesics.” These sentences struck me the most, and when I first read this, I immediately disagreed. It was not until the second part of the series did I start to consider his point.

In the second part of the series, he made some interesting observations that I have never considered to be the reason for the decline in newspaper readership. For example, I agree with his point about how editors pick stories and how this way of choosing stories varies in relevance to the readers. I also agree with his observations of the increase of news information in the last 35 years. Now, magazines and other publications draw readers who have special interests. In addition, Crosbie said online access has created a “virtual cornucopia” that can satisfy these interests as well. I completely agree with this statement. The stories I enjoy reading or want to know more about are stories about health and fitness, but you have to search for these types of stories in newspapers. I subscribe to magazines and read content online to fulfill these interests. Crosbie used the example of YouTube, but I did not exactly agree with this argument. I do not see how these videos, which are mostly a joke, are replacing the news.

Crosbie said that nothing will change if it newspapers in print and online keep producing a general interest product. I understand Crosbie’s point, but if newspapers begin to publish special interests, I think newspapers will just turn into magazines. I still believe there is a need for newspapers with everyday current events that may or may not be in a reader’s specific special interest. Everyone needs to know what is happening all over the world, and in my opinion, newspapers are the best attempt to do this. There has to be other solutions. I am going to stay an optimist because this is the profession that I am soon entering.