Tuesday 23 October 2012

television and conflict resolution.


This presentation analyses the relationship between television and conflict resolution. The article will start by defining the terms television, conflict and conflict resolution. The role of television in building democracy and nation building will be looked at. The paper will go on to look at the role of television in conflict resolution and the various means it uses to uphold peace and nation building. Here we look at the various theories that television programming subscribe to for nation building and also the different means it uses for peace. Theories like the agenda setting theory, the public sphere and other theories that try to explain the role of television in society will be looked at. The presentation will further look at the setbacks facing television in trying to resolve conflicts like commercialisation and the possible solutions to these setbacks.
Television and conflict resolution is an issue that has been ignored by many scholars, as Wolfsfeld (2004) notes, much has been written about the role of television in conflict and wars but very little about their roles in peace. Perhaps let us define the terms we are going to be dealing with. According to Mille (1989) television is a Greek word comprised of two syllables tele meaning distance and vision meaning sight. However the television we want to talk about can be viewed in Spencer (2005) sense who describes it as the medium for transmitting and receiving moving images that can be monochrome. Conflict can be defined as a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs. Wolfsfeld (2004) tends to agree with this definition as he says conflict occurs between two or more people who disagree on an issue that threatens their respective goals, values and needs. Wolfsfeld further says that the idea that conflict is war only needs to be demystified as conflict involves a wide phenomena starting from the household. Thus conflict is when personal or public interests are potentially at odds.
After defining television and conflict comes the role of television in conflict resolution. Conflict resolution is described by Bourdieu (1998) as ‘any process or collection of processes established to resolve disputes without trial or violence and can be through negotiation, conciliation, mediation, conciliation, conference, arbitration, consensus building..’ the media and television to be specific offers all these, they can be mediators or a public sphere. Said (1993) reiterates that conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating a peaceful ending of some social conflict. Television can play many roles in conflict resolution including setting news agendas that uphold peace as they are a pushing force in society, facilitate public debates and emphasize less on conflict.
Television and its role in conflict resolution.
The news media can play a central role in the promotion of peace, they can emphasize the benefits of peace, they can raise the legitimacy of groups working for peace  and  can even transform images of the enemy. The television like any other media should follow McQuail’s development theory and avoid conflicts. The television is a powerful force and people look for it on opinion since people believe in what they see due to the realism provided by television. Television solve conflict by broadcasting views on what conflicts might lead to for example Hollywood is popular for broadcasting war movies were they put a horrible picture on the effects of war. Thus people will most likely conform to good behaviour.
Wolfsfeld (2000) gives four types of impact the television can have on conflict resolution when it covers peace processes. Fist the media define the political atmosphere in which the process takes place. People are most likely to support peace processes when the general mood appears to be upbeat and optimistic. When the media are reporting about a resolving a conflict after a civil war they usually show the leaders shaking hands like Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation did in 1989 at the peace accord they always emphasised president Mugabe and president Nkomo shaking hands. This gives the people the idea that the atmosphere is now good and hence downplay all the areas where people are fighting. The way in which television report on the peace are of course directly related to the external events.
Secondly Wolfsfeld gives that the television influence the nature and type of debate about a peace progress. The television has become a central arena for political debate in the world. It is the television who decides who gets to speak and what is considered an appropriate form of argument. Wolfsfeld (2004) says, ‘…just as legal debates held in courts room have a prescribed language and demeanour, so do arguments carried out on television..’ an example lies with the public political debate between the then ruling party’s representative ZANU PF and their counterparts MDC in 2007 or better still in America the debates carried out by presidential candidates before elections, the public expect a certain type of language from the television.
Wolfsfeld (2004) give the third role of television in conflict resolution as that the television and the media often have an impact on the antagonist’s strategy and behaviour. Many antagonists attribute importance to the news like Hitler depended on the media for information. Thus conflicting groups often find themselves adapting their plans and actions in accordance with the television’s need so it is up to the television to forward a need for conflict to resolve. When violence breaks out the leaders usually come under enormous pressure to do something  and the television is an important agent for creating this urgency and as such events are short lived but can lead to policy shifts which Wolfsfeld terms the ‘CNN effect’.
The television also play a major role in conflict resolution through what Wolfsfeld postulates that they raise and lower the public standing and legitimacy of antagonists and their positions also. The television achieves this by modifying the image of the enemy and this will mobilise the public for peace as it does for war. Television usually portray the enemy as human and with needs also and try to give them a human face for example on Mai Chisamba show where social conflicts are discussed men and women are all taken into account  and their needs taken into account. This is mostly accomplished through television’s balanced reporting.
Perhaps another important aspect of conflict resolution as suggested by Fiske (1999) is television’s narrative form. Drama is narrative, and so is news, documentaries, soaps, sport, quiz shows and other television genres. These impose a narrative structure upon their subject matter and this narrative structure like the olden day drama, novel, newspapers and later on radio are presented in terms of character, conflict and conflict resolution where usually those that cause disorder are punished. These ideologies of an end with a resolution are meant as argued by Althuser to iron out differences and contradictions between its subjects’ real and imaginary social relations. It constructs a ‘consensus’ around the point of view of the bourgeoisie and excludes the consciousness of class conflict. Conflict of interest can only be expressed through contradiction, speaking against, so the repression of conflicts in the real is a reactionary ideological practise for it mobilises a consensus around the status quo and thus militates against conflict and contradiction. In lay man’s term we can say that conflict is resolved in television programmes and the villains are punished and this makes people fear to the consequences of the justice systems enforced by its instruments in form of state apparatus like the police and the military. That is why we see in war time movies of Hollywood America’s military always win.
Bakhtin (1981) argues that society consists of a structured system of different, unequal and often conflicting groups. The narrative structure of television entails conflict resolution. The A-Team as Fiske (199) says ‘…enacts masculinity/maturity and its conflict accommodation with social responsibilities.’ In such an explanation the struggle between hero and villain is metaphorical transformation of that between the forces of order and those of disorder, good and evil or culture and nature which ends with resolution. Ideological work of television begins by a comparison of the opening and closing states of equilibrium and secondly it identifies what constitutes a force of disruption and a force of stability with the force of disruption being punished and people develop a sense of anger at the villain such that they fear to be villains because they fear alienation.
Another instrument used by television is its mythologies. Raymond Williams (1997) argue that ‘television mythologies often attempt to resolve social contradictions.’ He further gives the example of the cop show where Slarsky and Hutch deals with the fundamental American contradictions between the need for conformity and the individual initiative between working in a corporate hierarchy and being an individual. They do police work and wear flashy clothes and have lots of good times. The bottom line is they that show that it is possible to fit into society and not loose one’s individuality. The series thus mythically resolves contradictions between the work and the pleasure ethic, between duty and enjoyment. Television mythology resolves conflict to enable individuals to adjust.
Two new phenomena hit the television and conflict resolution. These are peace journalism and public journalism. Schaeffert (1992:61) defines peace journalism as that which ‘…advocate the belief that journalists should use the power of the media to help resolve conflict rather than report it from a distance.  Peace journalism is still at its foundation level as it is a recent phenomenon and has many hindrances. Wolfsfeld notes that ‘Much has been written about the role of news media in conflict and war, but very little about their role in peace…thus the television is turning war correspondents into peace correspondents.’ However a more vibrant television reporting is the public journalism which Raboy (1992) likes to call the civic journalism.
 According to Schaeffert (1992) public journalism seek to explore those issues affecting a community long enough to make the community understand a conflict and get involved in solving it. Rosen (1994) says that ‘Civic journalism is about a realistic option to the role of television news in conflict resolution. It seems to me that public journalism is about putting a new lens on our camera’ Civic journalism has evolved over the past six years to enhance democratic principles. Burton (1987:7) argues that In deep rooted conflicts, problems continuously emerge at the community so their resolution must come from the members of the community.’ According to Burton (1987:7) ‘Conflict resolution means getting to the roots of the problem and resolving them in ways that will further the long term goal of all concerned’ thus public journalism or civic journalism is about getting to the roots of the conflict an dealing with it not just reporting. Civic journalism starts at community stations, national stations and even global stations like BBC and CNN. Each will service its public and thus the community station will resolve conflict at community level and the national television at national level and global television in its own community of the globe. For example Press T.V. has a program called the real deal that deals with global conflicts and provides solutions to political leaders and Zimbabwe Broadcasting Television has ‘Current Affairs’ a program that tries to provide solutions to political, economic and social problems in Zimbabwe.
Public journalism is supported by the communicative ethics posed by Harbermas. Harbermas says that ‘…universalization guides individuals to narrow conflicts down to justice issues and leave aside issues of differences in their conception of the good.’ He further stares that to find a valid answer television journalists must ask what is equally good to all not what is equally good to an individual or group.  Apel (1990:30) says that ‘communication ethics stands for an ethic of planetarium responsibility’ meaning that the ethics advocates that television  journalists work towards responsibility.  The ethics work together with the public sphere theory. Harbermas posits that the public sphere is a realm in which individuals gather to participate in open discussion equally. As such television is the modern public sphere, an institution of mediation between the private interest and the public interest. Harbermas (1993) also says that television journalists follow five principles. First he  says they have a commitment of values of justice. These kind of journalism see the people no longer as economic to audience. Secondly they view the audience as equals. Audience are seen as citizens not consumers, they also reduce sense of irresolvable conflict. Thirdly they evolved from observer to participants. A good example is those that set up the media representation at the Geneva conference. He also says that these journalists demand justifications and finally they accept responsibility.
Thus this type of journalism is more about participation and responsibility. A reporter Martin Bell in Jensen (1996) was quoted saying,
…in place of dispassionate practices of the past I now believe in                                   what I call journalism of attachment. By this I mean a journalist who                                     cares as well as knows, that is aware of its responsibilities, and I will stand neutrally between good and evil, right or wrong, victim and oppressor
Thus its not about taking sides as Spencer (2005) argues that the idea of moving from zero sum emphasis clearly means avoiding the construction of  winners and losers… there remains a problem about supporting the underdog since an evident bias may impact negatively on the stronger party and reinforce a siege mentality.
Theories of media also suggest that television plays an important role in creating peace. Television plays an important role in conflict resolution in countries that are still developing and are democratic. The media of a country are usually guided by the type of model governing that country. Studies in McQuail’s theory of development suggest that television in developing countries play a developmental role and that includes resolving conflict. Thus when there is conflict the television in developing countries subscribe to this theory and give little coverage if at all to conflicts there by reducing their impact. In such situations television’s role is to censor all possibly national threatening news or programmes like in Zimbabwe the case of the Gukurahundi or In China the case of Tiananmen square where hundreds of students were murdered. The television usually censors potentially alarm and despondence raising products.
The agenda setting theory also assumes that the media contribute to conflict resolution. Jensen (1996) argues that the agenda setting theory suggest that not only do television report news; they also create news by deciding what to report. He further argues that
The media will influence the audiences’ view of the world;                            therefore have enormous importance to conflict resolution                        because they are the primary… and frequently only… source                                   of information regarding conflicts.
This statement merely suggests that if a situation does not make the news it simply does not exist for most people. When peaceful options such as negotiation and other collaborative problem solving techniques are not covered or their success are not reported, they become invincible and are not likely to be considered or even understood as possible options in the management of a conflict. Thus television takes the role of broadcasting peace conferences. For example france24 broadcasted the Geneva conference live as it was happening showing that if the television sets the agenda of peace leading to people really considering the idea of resolution.
Mediation metaphors also portray the role of television in conflict resolution. The television can be mirror which represent society.
The television can also be a filter or gatekeeper. This is when the media sift information to avoid conflict and promote peace. The media may avoid controversial issues willingly especially if it is a public television. An example is the D-Notice system in Britain which denies the media to reveal some national secrets for safety. The television can also be a signpost directing people and showing them the way. The role of television is directed towards building peace thus its directions will point away at conflict. For example in Zimbabwe there has been directions by the television from cholera to the extent that a short film was made to enlighten people on the possibility of cholera.
The television In relation to the metaphors as it can also act as a barrier, when they directly manipulate television products. There is interception by a third party and manipulation of information hence television is loaded with numerous intentions and one of them is to avoid social revolts by praising the status quo, hence jingles on ZBC TV are not innocent. The television can also be a public forum. It is the platform for audience to deliberate on real issues of conflict. For example the famous Zimbabwean debate platform ‘Melting Pot’s
Television however has faced many setbacks in its role for conflict resolution especially due to the importance of conflict as news. One of the definitions of news is conflict to the extent that Hitler even said that, ‘wake me up when there is bad news, real news is bad news.’ Conflict is more interesting to the reporter as much as the viewer. Popular quotes for journalists says, ‘real news is bad news’. Conflict has become one of the dominant force in determining newsworthiness. Journalists are so posed with conflict such that one has just to rush to where there is a conflict and make the headlines. Such stations broadcast stories that involve much conflict and an example is Press T.V. Thus conflict is unavoidable behind the lens. According to Wolfsfeld (2004) many problems are rooted in the problematic relationship between news and peace. It is easier to promote conflict than peace. The media have an obsessive interest in threats, violence and conflict. For example  Al Jazeera is popular for conducting interviews with controversial figures like the late Osama Bin Laden who sparked hate speech.
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1987:7) says that “T.V. news sees the world as ‘a series of apparently absurd events that all end up looking the same, endless parades...sequences of events that having appeared with no explanation will disappear with no solution.” Instead of using real solutions the television is rather commercialising conflict because their sponsors benefit in the whole cycle of conflict. Wolfsfeld gives the example of the 2001 bombing on Afghanistan where Joice McIntyre of CNN enthused about the munitions and aircraft used in the bombing in what seemed a teleshopping mode as a price tag was attached to the screen with each aircraft and described as extremely accurate. Thus such visuals add to conflict as the aircrafts are used for assault.
Television thus should take a more responsible role in society as they are one of the most if not the only profession that can challenge irresponsible governments the world over. The television should rather embrace McQuail’s developmental theory where they play a key role in building nations and operate democratically and free from political and commercial influence in order to fulfil their role as the later day public sphere as Habermas puts it, responsible for the discussion of current controversial issues and finding the solutions. The television should also take into account the four ways it plays in conflict resolution.
In conclusion we can say that the television can be a destructive as well as a building element in society. It can aid conflict or resolve conflict. It is however ironic that the only force that can curtail conflict is enhancing it due to the increased definition of news as conflict thus television is rather promoting conflict rather than solving conflict. This area should be revisited for television to play a responsible role in society. Television should be an arena where conflicts are resolved and peace is built, as a public sphere where democratic resolution and consensus are reached diplomatically.

gramsci and hegemony


According to Frank Rosengarten (2004) Antonio Gramsci was born on 22 January 1891 in the province of Cagliari in Sardinia. He was born into a family of seven and he was the fourth. He shared a passion of literature with his sister Teresinna. He was influenced into politics by his brother’s early embrace of socialism. After completing his elementary he went to work due to his father’s arrest but he continued to study privately and eventually returned to school were he was judged as one of superior intelligence. In 1911 his life changed dramatically when he got a scholarship to the university of Turin an award reserved for the needy students from province of the former kingdom of Sardinia. Although he enrolled in the faculty of Letters he took a variety of courses in social sciences and linguistics. He became a journalist and one of the most critical and most feared voices. He is decorated for developing military journalism. However the fascist regime led by Mussolini decided to arrest Gramsci and sentence him to prison. The presiding judge on the trial is said to have made the infamous statement that “We have to stop this mind from functioning.” As he was viewed a dangerous man. His mind though did not stop functioning but his prison years were so rich with intellectual achievement when he wrote his prison notes.
He sought to establish why the fascist regime was not collapsing and capitalism in general. Gramsci’s political and social writings occur in two periods, pre-prison (1910-1926) and in prison (1929-1935). His pre-prison writings tend to be politically specific while his prison writings tend to be more historical and theoretical. Gramsci was concerned about how to eradicate economic determinism from Marxism and to develop its explanatory power with respect to supernatural institutions. So he held that 1) class struggle must always involve ideas and ideologies that would miss the revolution and also that might prevent it 2) he stressed the role played by human agency in historical change, because economic crises by themselves would not subvert capitalism 3) Gramsci was more dialectical than deterministic. Strinatti (1995:166) “He tried to build a theory which recognized the autonomy, independence and importance of culture and ideology. It can be argued that Gramsci’s theory suggest that surbodinated groups accept the ideas, values of the ruling class not because they are physically induced or mentally induced but because they have a reason of their own.” From Gramsci’s view the supremacy of the bourgeoisie is based on two, equally important facts, first economic domination and secondly intellectual and moral leadership.
Strinatti argues that, “Antonio Gramsci defines hegemony as whereby the dominant groups in society, including fundamentally but not exclusively the ruling class maintain their dominance by securing the spontaneous consent of subordinate groups including the working class through the negotiated construction of a political and ideological consensus which incorporates both dominant and dominated groups.” The ruling class succeeds in persuading the other class to accept its own moral, political and cultural values. The concept assumes a plain consent given by the majority of the population to a certain direction suggested by those in power. For example ZANU PF in Zimbabwe is famous for convincing the population into believing that they were out to protect the interests of the nation  from British and foreign intervention. However this consent is not always peaceful and may combine physical force or coercion with intellectual, moral and cultural inducement.
It can also be viewed as ‘common sense’, a cultural universe were the dominant ideology is practiced and spread leading to the spiral of silence were the minority do not speak out their ideas out and this is something which emerges out of social and class struggle and serves to shape and influence people’s minds. It is a set of ideas by which dominant groups strive to secure the consent of the subordinate class to their leadership. Lenny (2007) reiterates that it is, “The practices of a capitalist class or its representations to gain power to maintain it later. Gramsci stated that the only way to perform this labour class control is by taking over into account the interests of other groups of society and finding ways to combine them with their own views. If the working class is to advantage hegemony then it needs patiently to build up a network of alliances with social minorities. The working class must unite popular democratic struggles with its own conflict against the capital class so as to strengthen a national popular collective will.
According to Lenny (2007) Gramsci suggests two modes of social control. First there is coercive control which is manifested through direct force or its threat. It is usually needed when the state feels insecure or that leadership is fractured. For example in Zimbabwe coercive control is potrayed by the use of the military and the police when there are strikes like the one that happened at University of Zimbabwe when students were striking, the strike was thwarted down by the riot police. Then he identifies the other one as consensual control which arises when individuals voluntarily assimilate the world view of the dominant group. Gramsci argue that the media are the instruments to express the dominant ideology as an integral part of the cultural environment. He also suggests that if the working class wants to succeed in becoming hegemonic it must also create its own intellectuals to develop a new ideology. Intellectual work for example include instances like when the media are used to air out the ideas of the ruling class.
From a ‘Gramscian’ perspective, the mass media have to be interpreted as an instrument to spread and reinforce the dominant hegemony. For example we have the public media in Zimbabwe expressing and supporting the ideas of the former but powerful ruling party in the public media ZANU PF and in television there are even jingles like ‘Nyatsoteerera unzwe kutonga’ Hegemony operates culturally and ideological through the institutions of civil society which characterizes liberal democratic capitalist societies. These institutions include education, the family , the church the mass media. Different authors like Foucault, Althuser and feminists have taken Gramsci’s idea of a prominent discourse, reinterpreting and proposing it as a suitable explanation about culture, the construction of our beliefs, identities, opinions and relations.
Raymond Williams after reading Gramsci’s theory deduced that the forms of domination and correspond much more closely the normal process of social organization and control  in developed societies than the idea of a ruling class, which are much more usually based on earlier and simpler historical phases. These suggests that the relationship between the powerful and the ruled is important. Thussu (2006) argues that cultural hegemony is neither monolithic nor unified, but is a complex of layered social structures, and each has a “mission” and an internal logic, allowing its members to behave in a particular way that is different from that of the members of the other social classes, yet, as in an army, each social class acknowledges the existence of the other social classes, and, because of their different social missions, they will be able to coalesce into a greater whole, a society, with a greater social mission. According to Fiske, societal mission is different from the specific missions of the individual classes, because it assumes and includes them to itself, the whole. Like-wise, does cultural hegemony work; although each person in a society meaningfully lives life in his and her social class, society’s discrete classes might appear to have little in common with the life of an individual person; yet, perceived as a whole, each person’s life contributes to the greater society’s hegemony.
According to Gramsci's view there are on the one hand the dominant classes who seek to contain and incorporate all thought and behaviour within the terms and limits they set in accordance with their interests. On the other hand there are the dominated or subordinate classes who attempt to maintain and to further the validity and effectiveness of their own definitions of reality. There is therefore a continuing struggle for dominance between the definitions of reality which serve the interests of the ruling classes and those which are held by other groups in society. Culture, according to this view, is seen as the product of a much more vigorous struggle than is suggested in, for example, Althusser’s view of ideology. Cultural domination arises from a complex play of negotiations, alignments and realignments within society:
…the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests                          and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised                                  and that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed
Domination is not simply imposed from above, but has to be won through the subordinated groups' spontaneous consent to the cultural domination which they believe will serve their interests because it is 'common sense'. In this sense,
Culture for Gramsci is an amalgam of coercive and                                                   consensual mechanisms for reconciling human subjects to their                                 unwelcome fate as labouring animals in oppressive conditions
This is exemplified by politics. When a politician wants to win he proposes a campaigning strategy that will make the voters think that their concerns will be met. Thus there is negotiation with the lower class.
As argued earlier on hegemony is when the dominant group makes their ideas common sense. Fiske (1992: 291)   noted that, “Common sense is not something rigid and immobile, but is continually transforming itself”. As Fiske puts it, “Consent must be constantly won and rewon, for people's material social experience constantly reminds them of the disadvantages of subordination and thus poses a threat to the dominant class... Hegemony... posits a constant contradiction between ideology and the social experience of the subordinate that makes this interface into an inevitable site of ideological struggle”. In lay man’s terms the social position of the subordinate group always reminds them of their exploited position such that the balance of hegemony is threatened and hence need to be reinforced by re-winning it.

Critics of the theory argue that the theory has flaws. Strinatti argues that the main problem with Gramsci’s ideas is the same with the Frankfurt school in the Marxist background. A class based analysis is always reductionist and tends to simplify the relation the people and their own culture. The deterministic framework does not allow history to contradict the theory and the interpretation of reality becomes rather elementary. Raymond Williams understands that culture is not only a vehicle of domination, he finds preferable a definition of culture as a language of co-operative shaping of a common contribution. He also states that Gramsci proposed the concept of hegemony as a uniform static for abstract structure.
David Harns also mentioned that Gramsci’s ideas about the role of intellectuals in society are rather elitist and all the theory is too political and partisan to be credible. He adds later that another problem is the lack of empiricism or something directly related to with the people and their behavior. This is to say that people are not given what really suits them and their everyday encounter but are given something they wish for. This is true as suggested by television that represents reality that is more cushioning to the everyday troubles of life such that audiences tend to want the life they see on television which is being advanced by the ruling class and can only be gained after hard work.
In conclusion we can see that hegemony is a theory that still exists in our life as the elite of our societies use them to advocate for their views. Hegemony according to Gramsci was a way that the ruling class spread their ideas to the subordinate class such that their ideas carry the day and are the ones that make more sense and in line with ethical livelihood thereby binding the society to oneness. Thus hegemony is naturally the unseen force that binds society together.

proof reading

watchdog role

According to my understanding proof reading is the task of making appropriate corrections to a given manuscript. He says that it also refers to the act of editing a written script. Proof reading is basically going through a document. Proof reading also known as error correcting, a process first suggested by john Hopfield and Jacques Ninio is usually done by subeditors in the media business who are also known as copy readers.
A proof reader is usually corrects grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, inappropriate usage of words, phases or idioms and use of dead or worn out sentences and words. The act of proof reading sometimes can include giving extra inputs and sometimes omitting some of the contents to make the writing correct and appropriate. A dummy copy is printed and read letter by letter checking for a number of things including continuation from page to the next page, and numerical and scientific data.
According to www.bookediting.com/journalism.shtml proof reading is part of editing. It is the art of making correcting in proofs pulled from a composed matter. Thus it is the skill of managing to create a final grammatically correct and error free document. Proof reading checks on facts, style grammar and accuracy.  It also includes checking content choice, technique and nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, clauses, sentences and punctuation. It then needs an analytical mind because words are not neutral, they carry a connotative meaning, for example a house presents a solid structure whereas a home presents a picture of children running around. There are expectations a proof reader has to meet thus he/ she has to have certain qualities.
A proof reader has to have the following qualities. A proof reader has to be well read, knowledgeable of current affairs. This makes one be aware when correcting mistakes of the background to what he is proof reading. A proof reader has to also visualize development of a story but its impact on the readership because some stories are not even worthy it. One should also have summarizing skills on long and tedious reports as well as an eye for accuracy. That means he has to cut out all extra trimmings, boil it down ,skim it well then skim the skimmings, boil it down and when you are sure it will be a sin to cut out another sentence send it down and we will begin to boil it down.
Steps taken in proof reading one’s work and those of others include a process of first putting the document away for hours if time permits if you are the author of the text.  You become clearer after a break, detecting errors is much more readily available at your disposal.  Secondly there are three kinds of error writers make when producing a document. These are error of composition, errors of writing or text processing and errors of spelling punctuation. It pays to be on guard for such errors for example principle instead of principal
Thirdly, read thrice, first checking for on errors in composing sentences then for spelling and punctuation errors and finally typos also known as text production errors. Others focus on a paragraph or section at a time but the errors checked are the same. It is also important also not to have distraction or interruption, a word from a colleague is enough to make you lose your concentration and overlook a mistake. All changes on the page should be made in a contrasting coloured ink say red for black which leads us to the next point of the correction itself.
Correction is made in the margins and only in text to indicate were correction refers. A word to be changed should be struck through and correction in the margin. Special attention should be paid on scientific manes and numerical data. Words should be checked and made to agree with the dictionary or the style of the publishing company. Corrections are usually in form of signs for example / for transpose, sp for spell out, ] for further right, Q begin a new paragraph.