Here's the scoop straight from the article:
- Copy-editing requirements online were less stringent than those in print at 48 percent of the magazines. And 11 percent did not copy-edit online-only articles at all.
- A similar trend held with fact-checking. Although 57 percent of the magazines fact-check online submissions in the same way they fact-check print articles, 27 percent used a less-stringent process. And 8 percent did not fact-check online-only content at all. (The other 8 percent did not fact-check either print or online articles.)
Ouch.
Today, the PDF of the report became available on the CJR website.
A note to all those consumer magazines that are struggling to squeeze in copy-editing and fact-checking before publishing content to the Web: there are plenty of incredibly talented freelance copy editors, proofreaders, and researchers ready to lend a hand.
You may have to pay us, but trust me, our skills are worth it when it comes to delivering quality content to your readers.
Posts
Wow, this was really interesting. I've long suspected this is the case. Once life went to 24/7 news media coverage and a web in a user's hand as he's walking down the street, even though the media needs more content, they need it faster. So the rush to putting it on the air, on the web, is there--but is there editing/fact-checking to back it up?
ReplyDeleteI think where I'm most concerned about it is--not the big guys who can pay--but all these little online entities popping up offering freelance writers $10 an article. Since the writer needs to make a living, they pop out 10 articles in a day. What happens to quality and fact-checking when that happens?
You raise a good point about the little online entities that pay too low to get quality articles. I'm guessing they don't have much quality control in place--and they probably aren't going to pay to have someone with an eye for that sort of thing help them out if they're paying that little for the story in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSince this article first appeared in the NY Times, I've read a few responses that argue it's OK to be a bit lax with online content because it's not permanent like in print--you can get back into the story and fix errors when you spot them. I tend to disagree with this theory though--yes, it's nice that when I spot a typo in my blog post I can fix it. But that takes time--why not do it right the first time, especially if you're a big publisher churning out a lot of content going to thousands or even millions of readers and not a lowly freelancer blogging for a few people? And what about all those people who read the article before you spotted the error and fixed it? What about their impressions?
Besides, I still believe what I was taught in J-School: That old versions of content are still out there floating on the Web.
Besides, what do publishers have if they are no longer respected for their accuracy and quality?