.grammar.- why proof-reading is important September 19, 2008

.authored by something.of.substance.

For all those who don’t bother to proofread what they write, don’t care how things are spelled or think that “text speak” is appropriate as a means of communication, here is an example of what could go wrong:

Republican-siding newspaper The Wall Street Journal published this article comparing McCain and Obama’s

.warning: "pubic" discontent ahead.

proposed economic plans. What isn’t apparent about this seemingly well-researched and prescient article is the major editing gaff halfway through that completely changes the tone from serious to seriously funny.

In a paragraph depicting past presidential tax plans, the article states:

“Bill Clinton won that campaign promising tax cuts for the middle class. He ended up pushing tax increases on the rich and his party subsequently lost control of Congress, in part over pubic [sic] discontent on the issue.”

While I haven’t contacted the writer of the article, I’m going to assume he meant to say “public” discontent rather than referring to Congress’ collective groin issues.

The article ends without any further grammatical gaffs. But, rather than recall the overall political or economic point the writer was trying to make, I can’t stop giggling over the rather appropriate Malaprop. Knowing former President Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, the unintended meaning of that statement is not incorrect.

This article is an example of why proof-reading, and not just spell-checking, is so crucial. “Pubic” and “public” are both legitimate English words; spell check programs embedded both on the Internet as well as in computer document programs would not catch this “mistake”. Imagine you were job searching and handed over a resume saying you had extensive “pubic” speaking experience or wrote a college application essay detailing the many hours you spent volunteering for the “pubic”.

Knowing that these blog articles are available to the “pubic”, I go back and re-read them- even after hitting “Spell Check”. Sometimes I don’t catch a mistake until the third or fourth pass through my article. Sometimes people point out the errors for me. But, every time someone does, they’ve forgotten the argument I was making or the point of the writing and only remember the lingusitic misstep. If people need to make a decision about me and have only my writing as a reference, I want them to have the best (and most correct) impression. For me and, I’m sure, this particular Wall Street Journal writer, “pubic” wasn’t the impression he meant to leave.