Read on Twitter
So... thread.
One of the editing services I provide authors is fact-checking, which isn't just checking names and dates. For longer pieces, it's checking sources, dates, names, DIOs, etc. For shorter pieces, especially those that are online, it's checking hyperlinks and claims.
One of the editing services I provide authors is fact-checking, which isn't just checking names and dates. For longer pieces, it's checking sources, dates, names, DIOs, etc. For shorter pieces, especially those that are online, it's checking hyperlinks and claims.
Basically, it's doing a close read of a piece using lateral reading skills before the piece is published or printed. https://cor.stanford.edu/curriculum/collections/teaching-lateral-reading/
(IMO, all non-fiction pieces should be fact-checked. Including and especially those that are op-eds or blog posts. It's best when outlets and publishers provide it. Second best is authors seeking it out. This great piece by @frumpenberg explains why.) https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a33577796/nonfiction-book-fact-checking-should-be-an-industry-standard/
A lot of time is spent checking names and spellings which I'm happy to do because it means I get to learn about all sorts of interesting people. It's because of fact-checking I know lowercase names are increasingly common.
A citation from a piece I just finished checking.
A citation from a piece I just finished checking.
Sometimes, fact-checking crosses over into what's known as "developmental editing," which is feedback that focuses on the structure of a piece, the author's arguments and supporting evidence - bigger picture than line/copy editing. Some authors want that. Some don't.
Which leads me to this paragraph in this piece.
To be sure, I have no idea what type of feedback this author got. Or if Time offered any. I do know, though, if the author worked with an editor or a fact-checker, that person let the author down.
To be sure, I have no idea what type of feedback this author got. Or if Time offered any. I do know, though, if the author worked with an editor or a fact-checker, that person let the author down.
Had this author asked me for feedback, I likely would have focused on the purpose of that paragraph as it speaks to the goals of their piece. (I'm not tagging the author. I've peeped their timeline. The piece is out and I suspect they're not going to change it.)
First, it's interesting to look at the paragraph before the troublesome one and the lack of hyperlinks. That last line... oof.
Meanwhile, the piece was published today. The single citation is from July. This is the map of school openings today (source: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-where-are-schools-closed/2020/07.)
Meanwhile, the piece was published today. The single citation is from July. This is the map of school openings today (source: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/map-where-are-schools-closed/2020/07.)
It's not exactly a red/blue split. My hunch is the author did an #OpenSchools tweet thread this summer about politics and school openings and their head is still in that space.
Back to the sketchy paragraph.
#PairedTexts 1
1. Sentence 1 (note the use of present tense, Remember it was published today.)
2. Linked article (note the date).
3. Brookline school district home page today.
4. Somerville school district home page today.
#PairedTexts 1
1. Sentence 1 (note the use of present tense, Remember it was published today.)
2. Linked article (note the date).
3. Brookline school district home page today.
4. Somerville school district home page today.
#PairedTexts #2
1. Sentence 2 (note tense)
2. Linked article (note date)
3. Somerville school district home page today
4. Chronology from district of building re-opening process. ( https://somerville.k12.ma.us/district-leadership/central-administration/communications-and-grants/superintendent-communications)
1. Sentence 2 (note tense)
2. Linked article (note date)
3. Somerville school district home page today
4. Chronology from district of building re-opening process. ( https://somerville.k12.ma.us/district-leadership/central-administration/communications-and-grants/superintendent-communications)
Next one. #PairedTexts #3
1. Sentence 3.
2. Linked article - which is firewalled. But I can see enough to see that yes, parents are frustrated.
3. Gonna drop @rmc031's fantastic piece on the re-opening debate here because it's an essential read: https://newrepublic.com/article/161608/inside-long-messy-year-reopening-schools
1. Sentence 3.
2. Linked article - which is firewalled. But I can see enough to see that yes, parents are frustrated.
3. Gonna drop @rmc031's fantastic piece on the re-opening debate here because it's an essential read: https://newrepublic.com/article/161608/inside-long-messy-year-reopening-schools
#PairedTexts #4
1. Fourth sentence.
2. Linked article headline and date.
3. The FCPS website today.
3. The FCPS website on March 16.
1. Fourth sentence.
2. Linked article headline and date.
3. The FCPS website today.
3. The FCPS website on March 16.
That last one isn't a small detail. It's fairly large. It's entirely possible the information on the website went up without the union's consent - but I wasn't able to find any public evidence the unions disagrees with the plans.
At the same time, the linked article source for the "union says" claim is a tweet that has since been deleted.
Ideally, the author got a note from their editor/fact-checker asking about that last sentence. Saying something to the effect of, "I wasn't able to find evidence of this. Can you link to something - the district website shows a commitment to a fall opening."
But the hard truth about being a fact-checker and editor is that authors maintain control of their writing. They can choose to accept or reject anything you propose.
I remain optimistic more edu authors will avail themselves of fact-checkers and editors, even if it's not me.
I remain optimistic more edu authors will avail themselves of fact-checkers and editors, even if it's not me.
(It feels fairly meaningless to focus on something mundane as a single graph in a single editorial given everything that's going on. It's important, though, that we get this first draft of history as close to accurate as possible. IMO.)
It's frustrating to see reporters sharing this piece. Expected. But frustrating.
