Be open to reviews, edits, and even challenges to your content

As a young reporter on a magazine, I was taught that the feature stories and news reports I wrote were not to be shared with the companies I was writing about, or their agencies, prior to publication. I could share them with other editors, who could proofread and edit them to make them better pieces, but no one else. There were good reasons for that logic. My teachers did not want my editorial work to be influenced by people with agendas. It was seen as unethical to allow even the appearance that the editorial content of the magazine was influenced by anyone, including sales reps, advertising agencies, and the technology companies whose technology I was reporting. And to a certain degree, I still abide by the philosophy that, as an editor, I have a responsibility to my readers to report on the technologies fairly and without bias or improper influence.

But over the years, I have come to know another side of this story. And I have learned the lesson the hard way. It’s not like I let companies re-write my pieces to their advantage. But I have learned that sometimes I don’t know what I don’t know. Even with technical subjects I have reported on for years, I still realize that my knowledge of a given subject will have gaps, areas I don’t understand as well as someone else. Even people who appear to know less than me could still know things about a subject of which I have little or no knowledge. And so, for that reason, I sometimes allow technology companies, their agencies, and/ or organizations (e.g. national labs like Sandia or Los Alamos) to review my content prior to publication.

I don’t have to make any of their suggested changes if I don’t want to. But I think it is valuable to the readers if I allow reviews of my pieces to make sure I haven’t missed something important. I am human, and I have missed things, or left out things, in the past. So now, I might let an expert review my work, allowing the piece to become better based on their suggestions. I still have the final say on what goes into the story, but now I allow input from other people who might add something positive to the content for the good of the readers.

This openness to input was helpful when I wrote a cybersecurity white paper for a private company. I know a few things about cybersecurity, but my knowledge is far from complete. That’s why I let a trusted colleague take a look at what I’d written. This person told me that different Internet of Things (IoT) platforms should have different levels of security to prevent cyber threats. So, while CLOUD security might require certificates for secure authentication and access via API Keys, a gateway device would require different security measures: TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chip, secure “boot” operation, gateway device identity, OS updates, secure BIOS and an intrusion switch. By being open to review by a colleague, the cybersecurity white paper I wrote became more comprehensive in its coverage.

As the content developer, you should ask the following questions of your proofreaders: Who reviews your technical content? Why? Did it go through the legal department, public relations, or other departments within relevant organizations? Did the content change? How? If changes were made, did the content get reviewed a second time? Would your content benefit from third-party fact checkers? Are the changes suggested made for the readers’ benefit?