We receive job queries from freelance writers all the time. Usually these queries are direct, clear, energetic, and graceful. They make me think "Wow. I want to hire this person for my next project."
But when I received this e-mail in my [email protected] inbox yesterday, I was speechless.
Subject: Info, I am freelane writer John
Hi info,
I am John Doe [not his real name], a former news repoter and seasoned book author I've published 12 books. And now I am a freelane writer professional online wirting for a wide range. I an online everyday and want to be your writer. Please add me on your writer list and assign me work.
Best Regards
John Doe
Do you think he wonders why his "Hi info" e-mails don't lead to freelance work? Needless to say, I won't be asking him for a writing sample.
Reading
the newspaper each day, I catch frequent errors in grammar and usage. It’s
easy for me to find errors in newspapers—and, in general, in the writing of
others. What’s hard is finding errors in my own writing. By the time I get to
the proofreading stage, I’ve looked at the document so many times that I see
what I think is on the page, not what’s actually there.
My
failsafe remedies for finding errors—asking someone else to proofread or putting
the document aside for a while before a final proofing—aren’t always practical,
especially with tight deadlines.
Proofread for only one kind of error at a time. For example, proof one time for
punctuation (or even commas) and look for spelling errors in another
read-through.
Check for spelling errors by reading the document backwards. Start with the last word on
the last page and work your way back to the beginning. Because content,
punctuation, and grammar won’t make any sense, your focus will be entirely on
the spelling of each word.
Print
in an unfamiliar font so that the document looks different. Try a smaller font to force you to read more slowly and concentrate.
Make a list of your proofreading gremlins. Are there words you frequently
misspell? Do you capitalize headings inconsistently? Do you forget end quotes
or the closing parenthesis? Proofread one time for your common errors.
Do
occasional typos and other mechanical errors really matter? In a recent
Washington Post column on the increase in grammar and usage errors in the newspaper, ombudsman Andrew Alexander
quotes a reader on how these
errors erode credibility: “If they don’t care about basics like grammar and
spelling, how much do they care about factual accuracy?”
Add your proofreading tips to this list. Leave a comment or send me an e-mail.
Death panels. Government take over. Revenue neutral. The frenzy over health care reform is a potent reminder that the Internet provides a staggering amount of information—and misinformation. How do you separate the truth from what political satirist Stephen Colbert terms truthiness —what we “know” without regard to evidence, logic or facts?
Turns out, it’s not easy to ferret out the truth. Googling “facts about health care reform” turns up 5,320,000 hits! Where do you begin?
Start
with the source of the information. Who owns the website or blog? What are the
credentials and biases of the website owner? One of the pillars of good web
writing is credibility. It doesn’t matter how well written the web content is
if the credentials of the individuals or organization responsible for the
content are dubious.
Take Snopes.com, for instance, which appeared near the top of my Google search results. Snopes stamped this fact as false:
“The health care bill currently before Congress mandates that seniors be given euthanasia counseling every five years.”
But who is Snopes? I had to drill down deep (5 clicks) to find information on the site owners, Barbara and David Mikkelson. Browsing their press clips turned up a Reader’s Digest article that identified them as "the Internet’s preeminent resource for verifying and debunking rumors.” Do good press and prominent search engine listings make a site credible? Despite agreeing with the Mikkelson’s conclusion, I didn’t have sufficient information to judge their credentials.
White House: “Your Medicare is safe and stronger with reform."
House Republican Leader: The Democrat’s plan will result in Medicare “benefit cuts and premium increases.”
Truth or Truthiness? Since the site owners are clearly identified, you can factor in their biases in weighting their claims.
Are there any trusted, impartial fact checking sites? The St. Petersburg TimesPolitifact.com buttresses its claim to the truth with a Pulitzer Prize. That goes a long way toward establishing credibility with me. I like PolitiFact’s simple, uncomplicated Truth-O-Meter on health care reform.
President Obama’s claim: “We’re not talking about cutting Medicare benefits.” (Truth-O-Meter rating: half true).
Also scoring favorably on my trustworthy score card is FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, whose research I’ve found to be sound and unbiased. Their analysis of The 60 Plus Association TV ad saying Congress plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare: “Senior Scare."
As for the other 5,315,000 sites that Google turned up? Information overload on the Internet makes the job of fact checking—regardless of the topic—complicated and time consuming. It is wise to view all facts with skepticism, and carefully check out the source of information, the site owner’s credentials and biases. The hard truth is that it takes a lot of work to find the facts.
It makes me nostalgic for the days when there was one indisputable source for the truth: Walter Cronkite.
