E-Portfolio Final Post

A Term In Reflection
By Claire Theobald


Great writing, is like an orchestra. When played correctly, all of the elements come together and form a piece of music that lifts the soul and shares an experience with all who sit to listen. However, if even one instrument is played out of tune, the piece of music falls apart and instead of sharing music, the orchestra starts making noise. So too with the writer; regardless of how well the piece is written, incorrect use of grammar, spelling, and punctuation serve as a distraction that renders it nearly impossible for the reader to chew through.

Spelling, grammar, and punctuation, when used correctly, should be almost transparent. They should guide the reader, with a sort of invisible hand, and direct them through to the central theme of the piece. Utilizing these tools correctly is an effective way for the voice of the writer to reach the internal ear of the reader. Punctuation controls flow, and can convey as much emotion as the actual content of the piece. Spelling, when used incorrectly, is confusing and takes the reader away from the content. The use of incorrect grammar to makes reading slow and more of a chore then a pleasure.

Although these were central themes in the 2010 winter term of Proof Reading and Copy Editing, the course also touched on rules that are specific to journalists. As journalists are societies modern day version of town criers, people view them as the ultimate source for truth an accurate information. This being said, the writers reputation is key as any blemish on a journalists integrity may undermine the all important trust between the journalist and the reader. The journalist must always filter through a plethora of excess information and select the most important points to create a story that is fair, as well the journalist cannot skimp on the issue of fact checking. Although news organizations are not impervious to being fooled by misinformation, it is a journalists duty to insure that beyond a reasonable doubt that information is correct, and cited properly.

Lastly, the journalist is faced on a daily basis with issues of ethics. As stated before, maintaining integrity is essential if the journalist is to maintain the all important trust relationship with the reader. However, how far is too far? The journalist has a duty to report all of the relevant facts to the public, yet at the same time the journalist must balance the rights of the individual with the public’s right to information. In the end, there are no concrete rules pertaining to ethics. Each case must be judged as an individual, as there are far too many factors that are inconsistent when chasing a complex story. First and foremost, the journalist must rule whether the information is relevant. There is no point in putting in sketchy facts if they do not add any additional color to the story at hand. Then the writer must ask whether this will in anyway cause undue harm upon any person involved. If this fate is undeserved, then it is unlikely it will ever be allowed to print.

In short, Proof Reading and Copy Editing enforced the themes of attention to detail, balance, accuracy, and ethics as central to the success of the journalist. When all of these instruments are put into play at the correct moments, and tuned properly, then and only then can the journalist achieve success in their story.

NOTE: Photo taken from Erik-Jan Geniets Photography website, link here

Also, here is comment one, comment two, comment three, comment four, and comment five.

E-Portfolio When In Doubt

When in Doubt, Leave it Out
By Claire Theobald


A good carpenter is one who measures twice before cutting once. So too is a good journalist one who checks and double checks before printing information as fact. Journalists are the frontline of information, and when people read something that is printed in a news paper, hear something reported over the radio, or watch information presented during a news broadcast, people expect that information to be accurate and reliable. In truth is it the journalists job to maintain this high standard of accuracy, and to never misrepresent facts in a way that may skew the angle of the story. That being said, not all mistakes of accuracy are malicious; in some cases, the journalist is the victim as some sources may provide information that is not necessarily true. However, the journalist must uphold not only their own integrity, but the integrity of the publication they work for and must check and recheck all information before it passes into the journalists copy.

The issue, especially when information is not scientific, is that truth is often relative. Far from concrete, the idea of truth is abstract, and one person’s truth may differ greatly form another’s without either party being untruthful. The journalist may overcome this obstacle by ensuring that all sides of the story are weighted equally, and for every allegation made by one, a defense stands for another. Balance is the enemy of bias, because chances are if the journalist strives to achieve a balanced story, the ability for bias to slip through the cracks will be diminished significantly.

Even when the journalist is presented with concrete facts, such as numbers, or results from polls, it is important for the journalist to investigate how these numbers were gathered before inserting them blindly into their copy. When investigating a poll, the number of people involved in the poll is key, as rarely can one make a generalization about the entire population based on the opinions of less than a dozen randomly selected people. As well, one must consider how the fats were gathered. A biased party may represent numbers from a poll that has been altered to favour certain results over others artificially. In order to avoid putting biased numbers into a story, the journalist must look into how the numbers were gathered, and who gathered them, lest they be blamed for the mistake.

Mistakes in accuracy can generally be avoided by simply taking the time to look into the background of the information. In the newsroom, journalists are under tight deadlines, and unfortunately will never be able to find the time to scrutinize every detail in their copy. This being said, the journalist can follow one simple rule when facing such a deadline: When in doubt, leave it out. Simply, if your fact seems too sketchy and you don’t have time to solidify it, then don’t put it into your story because you may be held responsible for providing the misinformation.


NOTE: Photo taken from Caleburr.com, link here

E-Portfolio Editing Detective

Editing Detective
By Claire Theobald


Although journalists are, contrary to popular belief, still human beings and are therefore capable of error, it still remains the journalists duty to protect their journalistic integrity by ensuring that their writing is accurate and devoid of any obvious errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar. That being said, most forms of print media are still riddled with errors of this nature to varying degrees.

Misspelling is a mistake that occurs commonly in any field of writing. However, misspelling, in some cases, can cause much larger issues. For example, if a name is misspelled it can cause confusion and often put words in the mouths of those who did not say them, leading to legal issues. Below is an example taken from the Annals of Internal Medicine:









Issues of grammar, although possessing less risk then a misspelled name, can serve to undermine the integrity of a piece. Below is an example of incorrect use of grammar taken from the children’s book “Mighty Movers: Emergency”:















Punctuation errors, although on the surface seemingly harmless, can change the entire connotation of a piece of writing. For example, below is an image taken from a parking sign (image at FailBlog) where the incorrect use of grammar changes the intended meaning significantly:
















Incorrect information is perhaps the worst mistake any journalist can make. Presenting incorrect facts as truth can blemish even the best journalists stellar reputation, and news organizations are generally quick to recant any false statements in an attempt to preserve the publications integrity. Here is an example taken right out of history, where on November 3rd, 1948 the Chicago Tribune printed a story entitled “Dewey Defeats Truman” the day after former President Harry S. Truman won the election over challenger Thomas E. Dewey:















In short, although the occasional error is inevitable, the journalist should strive to produce writing without such errors as these sometimes innocuous mistakes can turn into a much larger problem.

Journalists are Not Robots? E-portfolio

Journalists are Not Robots? What Treason do you Speak?!
By Claire Theobald



As journalists, we are often mistaken for robots. Not necessarily in the “Oh my god! Look at that guy!! He is a six-foot-tall machine that walks on weird metal legs and talks like T-pain!!” kind of way, but more in the sense that journalists are expected to completely disregard their own natural bias and separate their emotions entirely when following a story. This is especially difficult if, like pretty much everyone in the western world, you happen to be a fan of anything. Inevitably, the journalist will find themselves in the situation where they are brought face-to-face with a person with whom they have a deep respect (or simply a person they think is the proverbial shit) and are expected to approach that person as if they were any other interviewee. Such was the case of a poor media mogul at a recent event on Churchill Square.

On March 30th, fans and media alike gathered to witness a celebration for Canada’s Olympic and Paralympic athletes. Pressed up against the railings, people pushed and shoved either hoping to get that last signature on a collectors jersey, or to get that last amazing photograph or interview of the athletes for tomorrows news cast. One by one, athletes stood at the opposite side of the railing signing autographs and smiling for cameras; Vivian Forest for the Para-Alpine Ski was no exception. It was here that a representative sent up to gather quotes from Forest made the fatal journalistic error. Instead of asking her questions, the representative commended her on her amazing performance, and gushed over what an inspiration she was. As if this didn’t get his boss fuming already, he then handed over one of his own possessions and asked her for an autograph. Upon returning to the camera crew he came with, he was thoroughly chewed-out. I can only speculate that the likelihood of his ever returning to one of these events will be slim to none.
This unfortunate journalist crossed the invisible line, a boundary set in place for the protection of integrity and credibility. Journalists are expected, in a hard news story at least, to represent facts truthfully and unembellished. Journalists must do their best to report all sides of the story equally, an endeavor that would be rendered impossible if the journalist’s scope is limited by personal bias.

Although one cannot expect a journalist to become entirely robotic, the reader expects that the journalist put their own feelings on the shelf and allow the truth to come forward on its own through interpretation of the facts. Fellow future journalists, listen closely, and learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before you (specifically, the guy in paragraph two). When faced with subject matter where you feel so strongly you cannot safely choke back your emotions, hand it to someone else. Although you cannot be expected to be robotic, you can be expected to uphold the principals and practices of good journalism.

(NOTE: Photograph taken from Galen's Robot Projects Website, link here)