E-portfolio: Editing Detective. Max Rausch

As in any industry, there are various stages of production involved with journalism. The legwork done by the reporter, including the tedious phone calls, frustrating investigation, and painstaking interviews, comprises but one phase in the production of a story.

Before a story is deemed worthy for publishing (at least in the professional sector, generally if not always excluding citizen journalism) it must be subjected to the discriminating eyes of a keen editor. The editor's role boils down to acting as a check against the human failings of the reporter(s) beneath him or her. Obviously, editors are subject to human failings as well, but the more eyes and brains that assess a piece, the fewer errors are likely to slip into the final product.

Errors in the content of a story, such as unfair bias, slanted language, and gaps in the facts presented by the reporter are crucial to isolate and correct immediately, as the first impression of a story is often the lasting impression apprehended by the reader or user. However, errors of form, such as grammar and spelling also exist form time to time, often reflecting the intense pressure of deadlines upon the reporter more than the abilities of him or her to comprehend and adhere to proper linguistic conventions.

Even seemingly innocuous errors can be damaging. The lead in this political story from the Edmonton Sun tries to be creative, but forms itself on a sentence fragment in the second sentence. Thereby, the lead that was meant to hook the reader in comes off as unprofessional rather than provocative. Fairly or unfairly, readers are less likely to take the story seriously as a result, assuming they are forgiving enough to read the story all the way through.

Without asking the editor, we can't ascertain an excuse for the mistake showing up at the forefront of the story. But journalism, more than most, is an industry based on results, not excuses.