A local newspaper in Ohio is turning to artificial intelligence to tackle one of the most common complaints from its readers – poor grammar and spelling. Cleveland.com, part of the Advance Local group, has introduced a new in-house tool called Editor’s Eyes, designed to help reporters catch mistakes before their stories go live.
The system, built by Advance’s David Cohn, acts like an automated copy editor. Reporters paste their draft into a browser window and receive instant feedback on spelling, grammar and readability. The goal is not just to improve accuracy but also to give writers a chance to reflect on how clearly they are expressing themselves – something the shrinking size of copy desks has made harder across the industry.
The newsroom’s editor, Chris Quinn, said the idea was prompted in part by criticism from English teachers who were frustrated at the quality of writing on the site. “We get more complaints about typos than anything else,” he told readers in his regular column, saying the tool was already making a difference.
He also sees a future where the traditional newspaper rewrite desk is remodelled as a function that will support the editing of AI-dervied copy.
While large national news organisations have been experimenting with generative AI to help summarise stories or produce headlines, Cleveland.com’s approach is more focused and pragmatic. Its use of AI addresses a very specific problem in local journalism: how to maintain quality with fewer editors and a faster publishing cycle.
The tool joins a growing range of AI writing assistants like Grammarly and Wordtune that are now widely used by publishers. But Editor’s Eyes was built with newsroom needs in mind, and the developers are already looking at ways to expand it, including adding automated prompts that flag when a story needs more sourcing or stronger context.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative introduces ‘Editor’s Eyes’, an in-house AI tool developed by David Cohn, aiming to address spelling and grammar errors in news articles. A search reveals no prior mentions of this specific tool, indicating originality. However, the concept of AI integration in journalism for error correction is not new, with similar initiatives reported in recent years. For instance, Wordvice released an AI Proofreader in November 2023 ([prfire.com](https://www.prfire.com/news-releases/wordvice-releases-ai-proofreader-an-automated-text-editing-tool/?utm_source=openai)), and QuillBot introduced its AI-based grammar checker in March 2021 ([prnewswire.com](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/quillbots-new-grammar-checker-uses-cutting-edge-ai-to-perfect-your-writing-301250410.html?utm_source=openai)). The report does not specify if ‘Editor’s Eyes’ is based on a press release, which would typically warrant a higher freshness score. Additionally, the narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from David Cohn and an editor, but no online matches for these specific quotes were found, suggesting they are original or exclusive. However, without the earliest known usage of these quotes, it’s challenging to confirm their originality definitively.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from cleveland.com, a reputable news outlet. However, the report mentions ‘David Cohn, a prominent figure within its parent company’, without specifying the company, which raises questions about the source’s reliability. Additionally, the report references ‘Il Foglio, an Italian newspaper’, but does not provide further details, which could be seen as an unverifiable or single-outlet narrative.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The report discusses the integration of AI in journalism to address spelling and grammar errors, a plausible and timely topic. However, the lack of specific details about ‘Editor’s Eyes’ and its development raises questions about the plausibility of the claims. The report also mentions ‘Il Foglio, an Italian newspaper’, but does not provide further details, which could be seen as an unverifiable or single-outlet narrative.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative introduces ‘Editor’s Eyes’, an AI tool developed to address spelling and grammar errors in news articles. While the concept of AI integration in journalism is plausible and timely, the lack of specific details about the tool and its development raises questions about the report’s credibility. The absence of clear sourcing and unverifiable references further contribute to the uncertainty. Therefore, the overall assessment is ‘OPEN’ with a medium confidence level.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
