To verify or not to verify; THAT is the question asked in an insightful and well-written article by Kate Newman titled “Book Publishing, Not Fact-Checking.”
Newman begins the article by stating “[r]eaders might think nonfiction books are the most reliable media sources there are. But accuracy scandals haven’t reformed an industry that faces no big repercussions for errors.”
Newman quoted me in the article to capture my perspective on why manuscripts should be vetted. I described the process I subjected client manuscripts to when I was in full-time practice.
Newman makes an important and keen observation in her article: “[r]eliance on books creates a weak link in the chain of media accuracy.” she went on to say:
Fact-checking dates back to the founding of Time in 1923, and has a strong tradition at places like Mother Jones and The New Yorker. (The Atlantic checks every article in print.) But it’s becoming less and less common even in the magazine world. Silverman suggests this is in part due to the Internet and the drive for quick content production. “Fact-checkers don’t increase content production,” he said. “Arguably, they slow it.”
What many readers don’t realize is that fact-checking has never been standard practice in the book-publishing world at all.
Read the full article “Book Publishing, Not Fact-Checking” by Kate Newman at TheAtlantic.com.