WildEarth Guardians

A Force for Nature

Select Page
Content Review Process for E-Communications

Our aim is to have all content approved by the appropriate stakeholders prior to submission to the communications team for deployment of final product. Each team and point person of the email is responsible for securing the appropriate reviews. The Communications Manager will review, proof, and copy-edit all emails; however, please help this person out by submitting clean and fact-checked copy. Too often email submissions will be sent to the Communications Manager that contain errors, factual and grammar. 

There will be times a review is not possible and this is a tension to be managed, not solved. As an overarching rule, do not send an email out in someone’s name if they have not approved it and/or if it has not been reviewed by the relevant program director. 

Content Review Process Recommendations

This is an overview of Guardians processes for the review of emails as well as some recommendations to assist in good team-play and each team/group may develop their own styles.

  • Start your work early and give the reviewer a heads-up, know we want to respect each others’ time and we want collaboration. Aim to give at least 24 hours’ notice for a factual accuracy and gut check review.
  • Provide the reviewer with the original document (Word or Docs) and image/images or suggestions for imagery.
  • Ask for any known requirements or “must haves.”
    • Are there specific topics that are rife with potential factual accuracy pitfalls? Can you identify them in advance or early in the content creation process?
    • When does it serve or not serve the organization as a whole to use coalition agreed-upon language? Are there times authors must use the coalition language?
    • When does it serve or not serve Guardians to use imagery that may be disturbing? What about using overtly outrage-inspiring imagery? For instance we have used non-grotesque images of animals in traps to elicit outrage and prefer to not show an animal overtly suffering.
  • Please be mindful of reviewing for facts vs. tone and voice as we are intentionally aiming to serve different audiences with different language.
  • Agree upon deadlines and interim steps, Trello, call, text, email to coordinate.

Fact Check Review

The Factual Accuracy Review is to ensure that informational facts, such as correct species or landscapes for imagery, accurate numbers, dates, current/timely program work status, the naming of a law or designation, coalition names or coalition agreed-upon language, etc., are congruent with program work.

  • Factual accuracy is not how the piece is written, grammar, voice, tone, or the author’s use of reasonable creative license.
    • Creative license is re-working conventions of grammar or language, imagery, or illustrative techniques to deepen an emotional and desired response from the targeted audience.
      • Author may frame with logical or possible outcomes, not strictly literal or direct outcomes.
      • Creative license is not fabricating truths, falsely misrepresenting facts or values.

Fundamental Messaging, Values-based “Gut Check” Review

A fundamental messaging review is to ensure that our communications are aligned with Guardians’ values at the highest level. Specifically, this is to address messaging that could be viewed as offensive, co-optive, demeaning, or off-color.

Content Review Process for E-Communications

Our aim is to have all content approved by the appropriate stakeholders prior to submission to the communications team for deployment of final product. Each team and point person of the email is responsible for securing the appropriate reviews. The Communications Manager will review, proof, and copy-edit all emails; however, please help this person out by submitting clean and fact-checked copy. Too often email submissions will be sent to the Communications Manager that contain errors, factual and grammar. 

There will be times a review is not possible and this is a tension to be managed, not solved. As an overarching rule, do not send an email out in someone’s name if they have not approved it and/or if it has not been reviewed by the relevant program director. 

Content Review Process Recommendations

This is an overview of Guardians processes for the review of emails as well as some recommendations to assist in good team-play and each team/group may develop their own styles.

  • Start your work early and give the reviewer a heads-up, know we want to respect each others’ time and we want collaboration. Aim to give at least 24 hours’ notice for a factual accuracy and gut check review.
  • Provide the reviewer with the original document (Word or Docs) and image/images or suggestions for imagery.
  • Ask for any known requirements or “must haves.”
    • Are there specific topics that are rife with potential factual accuracy pitfalls? Can you identify them in advance or early in the content creation process?
    • When does it serve or not serve the organization as a whole to use coalition agreed-upon language? Are there times authors must use the coalition language?
    • When does it serve or not serve Guardians to use imagery that may be disturbing? What about using overtly outrage-inspiring imagery? For instance we have used non-grotesque images of animals in traps to elicit outrage and prefer to not show an animal overtly suffering.
  • Please be mindful of reviewing for facts vs. tone and voice as we are intentionally aiming to serve different audiences with different language.
  • Agree upon deadlines and interim steps, Trello, call, text, email to coordinate.

Fact Check Review

The Factual Accuracy Review is to ensure that informational facts, such as correct species or landscapes for imagery, accurate numbers, dates, current/timely program work status, the naming of a law or designation, coalition names or coalition agreed-upon language, etc., are congruent with program work.

  • Factual accuracy is not how the piece is written, grammar, voice, tone, or the author’s use of reasonable creative license.
    • Creative license is re-working conventions of grammar or language, imagery, or illustrative techniques to deepen an emotional and desired response from the targeted audience.
      • Author may frame with logical or possible outcomes, not strictly literal or direct outcomes.
      • Creative license is not fabricating truths, falsely misrepresenting facts or values.

Fundamental Messaging, Values-based “Gut Check” Review

A fundamental messaging review is to ensure that our communications are aligned with Guardians’ values at the highest level. Specifically, this is to address messaging that could be viewed as offensive, co-optive, demeaning, or off-color.