Editing

PART TWO: THE EDITING PROCESS

So you’ve done your reporting, successfully pitched your story, and written a draft –– the hard work is over! Now, you can just sit back and let the editors fix a few spelling mistakes, and unleash your brilliant investigation into the world.

Well, not quite. Sorry, but you still need to pass through two more circles of OCCRP’s Inferno-esque editorial process. During the editing phase, your story might change significantly. There are a few reasons for this.

Like most publications, OCCRP has a “voice,” and editors will attempt to capture that in your piece. OCCRP’s voice is authoritative, frank, measured, and always based on solid, verifiable facts. In our investigations we don’t like to include much conjecture or interpretation, which other publications may allow. We try never to allow our stories to become snide or mocking. While the subjects of our investigations might have done illegal or unethical things, we let the facts speak for themselves rather than denigrating them.

At OCCRP we also face other challenges.

Our investigations are often a balancing act. We do our best to weave a compelling narrative for readers, while retaining a level of detail that most publications would jettison. We want every one of our stories to be comprehensible to a reader with no specialized knowledge, but we don’t want to lose others who come to us for a deeper dive than they will find elsewhere. It’s the editor’s job to work with you to find the balance –– and it’s not always easy. You might find yourself in intense discussions about whether a particular fact is necessary to include, or how a reference to a document should be phrased.

Editors might also need to dive into primary source documents to add more details to your story or make sure the facts are being presented clearly and accurately. While they are not as militant as OCCRP fact-checkers (more on that later), they will pose tough questions. Sometimes they will ask you where your information came from, or how you can be sure of it. These discussions are important. You don’t want your story to get through editing with unsourced information that will be demolished by fact checkers — or, worse, to be published in a final form that is confusing or opens you up to attack. Better to demolish it yourself. That way, you can painstakingly come up with wording that you like (or at least don’t hate).

We strive to give each story as much editing as it needs. Sometimes a story is very straightforward and clear, and it might only get one edit. Other times (let’s face it — a lot of the time!), it’s incredibly complicated and involves a thicket of facts, and it might need to be reworked four or even five times. On average, a story receives two edits before fact-checking and another edit afterwards.

The most important rule our editors follow is simple: Do not move a story forward if there are things in it you don’t understand. Even if the subject matter is complex, we need to explain things in a way that an interested reader can comprehend.

Here’s how it works in more detail:

After you file your story, a first editor will be assigned. This person usually does the heaviest lifting. It’s the first editor’s job to make sure the key facts are all present, that we can back up all the assertions in the story with proof, and that everything fundamentally makes sense. He or she will not fact-check the story, but might ask you whether you can prove specific facts, and will sometimes ask what the proof is. Doing a first edit might require rearranging the story and changing many sentences to make sure the story flows in a coherent way.

The story will then pass to a second editor who will read the draft carefully to make sure it’s clear and comprehensible. This person might also need to make some significant changes, and ask you some tough questions, but usually this is done in consultation with the first editor.

You and the two editors may discuss issues like phrasing, structure, and whether a piece of information is helpful or necessary. One everyone is in agreement –– or you have at least reached a reasonable compromise –– the story sometimes goes to a third editor (this is common for very long or complicated stories). The third editor may give the story a light edit, and suggest some cosmetic changes. In rare cases, he or she may find some fundamental flaw that has eluded you and the first two editors.

After the second or third edit, the story will move into the fact-checking stage of our editorial process. More on this later (or jump to the fact-checking section of this guide).

[[Imagine fact-checking taking place here]]

After the story is fully fact-checked, another editor will read the story again to resolve the comments left by the fact-checkers — so don’t be surprised to see yet another person popping into your Google Doc! Sometimes this last edit is very light, but other times, the fact-checkers have uncovered substantial issues and the editor needs to do a lot of work to put the pieces back together.

Finally, our editor in chief, Drew Sullivan, will give the story a final read to make sure it meets editorial standards and doesn’t present any legal issues for OCCRP. Usually this is painless, but occasionally Drew uncovers issues that need to be discussed.

There are several reasons we put stories through this editorial meat grinder:

• At OCCRP, we publish lots of investigations that are complicated and accuse people — sometimes very powerful people — of wrongdoing. We need extra layers of scrutiny in order to make sure the facts are solid, so we can be confident that we are reporting ethically, and that we minimize the risk of being sued.

• From a narrative perspective, our investigations are often complex, and require a fresh set of eyes to make sure the reader understands what is being presented. A common pitfall when writing up an investigation is to assume knowledge the reader does not have. This often happens because you, the reporter, have done so much research that your brain may fill in gaps in the story with information it’s retaining. The same thing can happen to an editor, which is where the second and third editors come in.

And now, you have finally made it through editing. Take a deep breath. You are about to enter the circle of hell that is fact-checking.