Careless Writing and Cursory Editing

 

Careless Writing and Cursory Editing

Long before I was even aware of TOEFL and GRE, my uncle told me to read the editorial page of an English language newspaper carefully, if at all I wanted to improve my reading and understanding things written in English. I did, as a certified TamBrahm. I can tell you that my vocabulary too improved (you have to take into account that my 8^th standard to 11^th standard education was in Kanchipuram, a temple town with only three high schools, including the one under the municipal authority, and none with English medium instruction in any class).

From then, in 1969, up until now I am a regular and serious reader of the editorial page of the English language newspaper we get in our home. I expect that the writers whose views are expressed in these pages also take the time to check their offering; on top of that, the editor of the page that screams, “Editorial” must also take her task seriously enough to ensure no glaring errors on that page.

Under the sub-heading, “Options to consider”, the writer starts off: In this context, there are two ways to look at the difficulties stated.

This is OK as I had read through the two difficulties till I came to this section in the article.

Then, the next paragraph starts, and I am not misquoting here: “Alternatively, ...”

I stepped back from the paper to check whether I did read it correctly. No error in my reading. From the beginning of the write-up to the sub-heading, not even a single option had been offered, though the two differing opinions on the issue have been reported. Indeed, only subsequently it is mentioned specifically, “A second option could be ...”

The following is my conjecture: the second option as offered in the paper could indeed have been the first, and the implicit option that starts with “Alternatively...” could have been the second. The ease with which one can alter the positions of ideas in a word processor–merely cut-and-paste–could surely have given rise to this error, completely unnoticed.

I am not making a mountain out of a mole hill. I am neither devaluing what the writer says in the article nor being overly critical of the editor, though she was duty bound to as the write-up is featured on the “Editorial” page, in my way of thinking that anchors the paper, though in no way she can be taken to endorse the ideas in the write-up.

This made me think of my uncle and his advice. I am merely sharing the value of that advice with the readers.

Raghuram Ekambaram