Does editing make reporters less vigilant?

Andrew Alexander, ombudsman for the Washington Post, wrote recently about how cuts to the copy-editing staff have led to more errors appearing in the pages of the Post. In response to reader feedback, Alexander followed up the column with a post on his own blog, citing many readers who think that much of the blame for typos and errors lies with reporters.

“To blame all the issues on declining numbers of copy editors suggests that your reporters are either not competent at the basics of journalism or too lazy to proofread their own work,” said one reader.

I don’t think reporters, especially ones at news agencies as reputable as the Washington Post, are incompetent or lazy. But I do think the editorial process, and particularly the awareness that reporters have of the process, can condition them to let errors slip by.

Editors are familiar with this phenomenon (at least, I think they are—I don’t know all of them). If reporters were under the impression that theirs would be the last set of eyes to read over their content before it was published to the world, they would probably make far fewer typographical and grammatical errors. But merely knowing that their articles will be checked over by a professional editor at least once is enough for them to let their guard down slightly and be not quite as vigilant in catching them.

This flaw, if we can even call it that, is not specific to reporters. It’s just human nature. Knowing that someone will be coming up behind you to clean up minor spills would make anyone a little less vigilant.

Reporters have a host of issues to worry about when writing an article, aside from spelling and grammar: story angle, evidence, sources, relevance, structure, to name some.

It’s certainly not the case that most reporters “couldn’t be bothered” or are weak in spelling and grammar. In my experience, reporters recognize as much as anyone the impact that typos have on their publication’s reputation and are excellent writers with a solid understanding of the basics of grammar.

But when you face the kinds of deadlines that reporters face and have these other “big picture” issues to deal with, mistakes inevitably creep in.

Of course, this makes the editor’s job tricky. Editors tend to be perfectionists (again, perhaps too broad a generalization). They usually see all kinds of ways in which to improve a blog post or news article before it is published (while minding never to alter the author’s intent or voice, of course). And given unlimited time, they probably could make countless improvements.

Weaknesses in flow, word choice, sentence structure, and punctuation are perhaps not as tangible as spelling and grammatical errors, but fixing them can improve the reader’s experience just as much. In a competitive news environment, though, editors (like reporters) don’t have unlimited time. They have to concentrate on eliminating the weaknesses that would be most distracting to the reader, and that usually means fixing grammar and spelling first.

What can publishers and editors do, then, to help their reporters avoid this mental trap of letting mistakes slip by? Whatever the solution, it should not detract from the reporters’ other tasks. Alexander makes one suggestion: “Most newspapers do a pretty good job of tracking errors that appear in print or online. Perhaps they should place equal emphasis on tracking reporter errors that are caught by copy editors.”

I find that reporters have their blind spots in writing, like anyone else. Each of them makes certain kinds of mistakes more than others. Editors could keep track of these blind spots and share their list with reporters periodically, being as supportive as possible, of course. Also, it wouldn’t hurt to remind reporters once in a while that their vigilance up front allows editors to make more substantive improvements later in the process. Giving the end reader the best possible reporting is everyone’s hope, after all.