Years ago, newspapers across the nation had a group of employees who struck abject fear into the hearts of reporters and editors — proofreaders. These were people — usually women — who worked in the backshop and read every word that went into the headlines, news and feature stories and photo captions that Linotype operators set for that day’s edition.
These proofreaders were not kidding when they challenged grammar and spelling. I have no idea what kind of evil 19th-century primers they had stashed in that little room where they hunched over galley proofs, but when one of them headed toward a particular editor or writer, the city room got quiet.
When you got a personal visit from a proofreader, it meant you were too arrogant or too stupid to learn from the changes that appeared in the paper; a proofreader was going to have to deliver the grammar or spelling rule in person.
Such humiliations were not easily borne. You learned to correct your sloppy habits before they got to the proof room. It made us better journalists, because it tightened and clarified our language. This attention to detail apparently matters to readers, also.
Newspaper readers from across the country told surveyors for the American Society of Newspaper Editors in a 1998 research project why they took what they read with a grain of salt:
- Papers are riddled with factual errors and spelling or grammar mistakes.
- Newspapers do not respect or have knowledge of their readers.
- Journalists’ biases and point of view influence both what is covered and how it is covered.
- Papers give too much coverage to sensational stories because they sell papers.
- Newsroom values and practices sometimes conflict with readers’ priorities for newspapers.
- Members of the public and the media who have had actual experience as subjects of news stories are most critical of media credibility.
All of this data leads to one conclusion: You folks are a tough audience.
And, you should be.
Overall, according to a 2002 ASNE report by Christine Urban, the newspaper industry should learn the following:
- A newspaper’s efforts to improve credibility are appreciated.
- The public can forgive mistakes, but the mistakes must be admitted and systems developed to avoid them.
- If newspapers are not clear about the motives behind coverage or frank about disclosing potential conflicts of interest, then readers will fill in origins of sensationalism or bias on their own.
Some of you know when the emperor is naked — when the grammar is sloppy and the spelling is silly. You pick up the phone and call me with the information on story, page number and placement on the page.
Periodically, any newspaper needs to get a pail of cold water in its figurative face. I am sitting here in my chair prepared for the shock.
Let’s kick off this reader input party with an exercise in spelling and grammar. (I know I will regret this, but I also know it will be good for me.)
Obviously, this exercise will be the most fun for those readers who remember how to diagram sentences and who can spell nine out of 10 words without reaching for Webster’s, but readers with less sensational skills are welcome to participate, too.
In fact, I am willing to dredge up some prizes for readers who excel at this exercise.
Here’s what I want you to do: Take your favorite section of today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune and read every word. Mark by circling them with a red pen the spelling errors and the grammatical errors.
Once you are done, bundle the marked paper along with your name, address, telephone number and any comments you have on the overall product and send them to me, The Reader Advocate, The Salt Lake Tribune, P.O. Box 867, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111.
Once this mountain of mail is delivered to me, I will go through each piece, noting errors that seem to be repeated, and then pass them along to the editors responsible for the sections.
This is your chance to pick the The Trib’s spelling and grammar nits.
But confine this exercise to spelling and grammar.
I will ask for factual error checks and bias charges later this year, because if I am nothing else, I am a glutton for punishment.
