When editing a story prior to publication, even the smallest details, such as punctuation and word choice, can change a meaning. In “The Comma that Cost 1 Million Dollars,” Ian Austen describes how a phone company got out of a contract because of a cable provider’s careless use of punctuation. Commas are often small marks that are used for clarification and listing, but in this case, one comma completely changed the meaning of the main clause of the contract. This example shows how important it is for editors to have a watchful eye for grammatical slip-ups, especially when libel and defamation are issues when writing the news. Also, a misplaced comma can change a fact of a story, which would deter readers from the truth.
In “Who you callin’ ungrammatical,” Jan Freeman debates the use of “whom” in formal writing and print. She mentions the opinion of one linguist, who thinks that beginning a question with “whom” in contemporary, standard English would be unusual and bizarre. However, as traditional newspapers and the AP Style Guide tell journalists, “who” is always a subject, never an object. Freeman goes on to explain the ideas of using “whom” in a headline. Some suggest that it sounds too formal to grasp a reader’s attention and would use “who” instead. However, there are others who would use the proper English or simply change the headline to avoid the debate. While formal words, such as “whom” are not often spoken, it is important to keep the English language the way it was intended. If editors and newspapers were told that the difference between “who” and “whom” didn’t matter, then one can’t help but wonder what would come next. While using “who” instead of “whom” doesn’t confuse the reader, allowing it would make room for other exceptions that may not be as synonymous in meaning. Disagreement is beneficial in a newsroom, and editors and reporters need to debate such issues as the use of “whom” because there is a reason why the word exists in the English language. There needs to be editing standards so that errors and confusions don’t appear in news stories.
It is important for copy editors to notice the smallest of grammatical and organizational errors that others among the news staff may not. As Ann Auman describes in her article, copy editors are the “glue in the whole process of writing, editing and presentation.” They add quality and value to the final project. However, in today’s fast-paced news room, copy editors have been given more and more responsibilities with the advent of technology and online projects. Copy editors must look at a story as if it is the first one they will read at any given moment. Fresh, attentive eyes must catch any margin of error so that one hyphen, one article or one pronoun won’t hurt credibility or reputation.
Case Study – Grandfather charged in blaze that killed 3
The headline of this story demonstrates how careful editors need to be before publishing a story. One needs to think carefully if there are any issues that may arise because of publishing one word over another. In this case, for an editor who doesn’t consider a fetus a human life, there would be no problem with the headline. However, for a reader who is a staunch conservative, pro-life activist, then problems will surface. It is best to choose headlines and words that remain neutral. For this story, a better headline would have been something like, “Grandfather sets blaze, charged with 4 murders.” This headline coincides with the facts of the story while avoiding the subjective opinions of how many people actually died.
