We should let our sources check facts and ensure accuracy … but we shouldn’t desperately seek their “approval” Every editor I know hates the corporate “approval process.” And with good reason, too. It slows down the entire editorial process; it involves too many people with silent, secret agendas; it turns perfectly good copy into unreadable corporate gibberish; it opens up your entire publication to a committee of untrained, wannabe editors who wreak havoc on it. Who in their right mind would like the approval process? Well … I do. Actually, it’s not that I like the approval process so much … but I do think it’s necessary. I believe that the approval process could be a very good thing—if it’s used properly. Why? Because editors can get in big trouble if they get things wrong. You don’t want to run a story with factual errors, right? You don’t want to make yourself, your publication, your team and your boss look stupid, do you? Well, the approval process can prevent that from happening, because the sources who are closest to the material should be the ones to check it for accuracy.