Posts within the category: Credibility

March 5, 2010

Need to hire a freelaner? I've got just the wirter for you.

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 info@ewriteonline.com 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.

-- Leslie O'Flahavan

January 20, 2010

Proofreading Tips for Finding Errors in Your Own Writing

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.  

Feeling like I’ve exhausted my arsenal of proofreading techniques, I’ve looked to experts (including the Online Writing Lab at University of Arkansas, the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina, Grammar Girl)  for advice  beyond the tried-and-true (read aloud, use spell-check). Here are some new-to-me techniques for catching errors. 

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. Print in an unfamiliar font so that the document looks different. Try a smaller font to force you to read more slowly and concentrate.

4. 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.  

-- Marilynne Rudick (guest blogger)

August 20, 2009

Fact Checking Health Care: Truth or Truthiness?

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:

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.

One person’s facts are another person’s falsehoods. The White House has created its own fact checking site: Health Care Reform Reality Check.  So has House Republican Leader John Boehner: Top 10 Facts About House Democrats' Health Care "Reform Legislation." It hardly seems like the two parties are talking about the same legislation.

• 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 Times Politifact.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.

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.

-- Marilynne Rudick (guest blogger)

Get email updates

Subscribe via RSS