Copy-editing in the Age of Google

A court decision in favor of the mass digitization of libraries is an occasion to consider how technology has transformed the copy desk.

Jacques Brinon/AP/File
The Google logo is seen on the carpet at Google France offices, in Paris, Dec. 6, 2011.

You might have missed it amid the "Obamacare" drama and the heartbreaking news of the Philippine typhoon. But those tracking developments on the intellectual property scene heard a shoe drop in mid-November – a very heavy shoe.

As Reuters reported, on Nov. 14 "Google ... won dismissal of a long-running lawsuit by authors who accused the Internet search company of digitally copying millions of books for an online library without permission."

It ain't over till it's over, and the Authors Guild, the plaintiff, promises to appeal. (While they're in court, I suggest they try to get their possessive-plural apostrophe back, too.)

The nub of the ruling is that making "snippets" of books available via a search engine, as Google does, is "fair use" of the material rather than copyright infringement.

The ruling is clearly of interest to linguists, and in their interest. As Ben Zimmer wrote on the blog "Language Log," "[US Circuit Judge Denny] Chin ruled that the Google Books project constitutes fair use because it is 'highly transformative' and 'provides significant public benefits.' "

One such benefit is to make the public, including scholars, aware of what books exist. That can only help the market for books in general.

Second, Judge Chin wrote, "Google Books greatly promotes a type of research referred to as 'data mining' or 'text mining.' " He added, "Google Books permits humanities scholars to analyze massive amounts of data – the literary record created by a collection of tens of millions of books. Researchers can examine word frequencies, syntactic patterns, and thematic markers to consider how literary style has changed over time."

Chin's ruling came down when I was back in the Monitor newsroom, filling in on the copy desk. Although we've all been using online resources for fact-checking for years, on that particular day I was especially mindful of the level of detail that is at our fingertips now – in part through the search engine that has just been endorsed from the bench.

In my early days at the Monitor, we had yellowing reference clip files, each elaborately folded item a little bit of origami decorated with date stamps, and enormous reference volumes like the CIA World Factbook or the Encyclopedia of Associations.

We were grateful to be able to confirm in one of these references the name of, say, a cabinet minister mentioned in an international story. That generally meant getting out of one's chair to haul a heavy book off the shelf, if not actually trundling into the Monitor library. Nowadays it's a matter of copying and pasting a bit of text from the article being edited into an on-screen search box.

Fact-checking the names of people mentioned in the recent Monitor piece on the Bolsa Família program in Brazil, for instance (see the Nov. 25 issue), I found I could easily confirm online the names and spellings – with accent marks! – not only of a former government minister but a number of worker bees mentioned in the story: think-tankers, civil servants, and social workers. It was easy to shoot straight to their profiles on LinkedIn and, in one case, to her playlist on a music-sharing site.

But the Internet centipede has not yet dropped its last shoe. The other side of the Google decision is that we still struggle, in the Digital Age, for economic models of compensation for authors and journalists. People call new technologies "disruptive" for a reason.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Copy-editing in the Age of Google
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today