One meets the most amazing people at a Star Trek shoot.

Take Coleman Clarke, who has managed sound duties with aplomb at the recent filming of Star Trek: Phase II for an episode that I wrote titled “The Holiest Thing.” A Syracuse University alum, Clarke’s radio and television news career stretches back to the Mutual Broadcasting System, more than 30 years as a broadcast engineer with NBC, and a stint as a higher-ed instructor.

Clarke has covered presidents, tragedies and political gaffes. He rubbed elbows with the likes of David Brinkley, John Chancellor and Tom Brokaw. He was there when President Reagan was shot, and he was deeply involved in the coverage of 9/11.

As an old news guy myself, I spoke with Clarke about how journalism has changed in recent decades. He had some great insights and strong opinions on the topic.

“When I started, when there was a story to pursue, a lot of effort was put into gathering of details and confirming veracity of sources before a story was either published or broadcast,” Clarke said. “Because you have virtually unlimited sources of news now, be they podcasts and blogs, Internet TV as well as the more well-supported facilities, I think there is a zeal to make yourself known either by breaking a story, breaking aspects of that story or proving the story wrong.”

That pressure, Clarke explained, has shifted the focus of news reporting from getting it right to getting it now.

“A lot of the stories we see on the Internet are snake oil,” he lamented. “We are a disposable society, and we are so adamant for immediate gratification, we like to have our facts in quotes now, on our schedule, on our time.”

Clarke cited Brinkley and Chancellor as journalists who would go with a story only after they were personally convinced the news was sound. Now, he said, “I have seen the deterioration of journalistic research and a rush to judgment that has been exacerbated by the proliferation of non-credentialed journalists.”

Interestingly, Clarke said the responsibility for resurrecting journalism’s higher standards of the past lies not just with the agencies themselves, but with the consumers of news. People need to be more discerning of what they hear or read, and they shouldn’t rely on just one source of news, he said—especially when individual news organizations may be prone to a politically left or politically right approach to reporting.

Getting people more engaged in understanding the news might be a tough sell. When teaching university courses, Clarke discovered students who got all of their news from Jon Stewart. Others couldn’t name a president prior to Bill Clinton, didn’t know who Richard Nixon was and had never heard of Watergate.

“We are not educating our students,” he said. “That is part of the reason why they are susceptible to getting news from unreliable sources. They don’t have the tools to discern what is right and what is wrong.”

Clarke earned an avid fan in me. While the online world has opened many new avenues for people to gather news and information, it’s critically important for journalists to adhere to the age-old virtues of accuracy, veracity and meaningful perspective, and for the rest of us to discern what’s real rather than wait to be spoon-fed.

Come on, fellow scribes, admit it: You say you aren’t above having your stuff edited, but when it happens you quietly—and sometimes not so quietly—lob invectives at the demonic soul who dares to excise so much as an ellipsis from your masterpiece.

Over my career in communications, I’ve been edited by the best of them. And by the worst of them. Indeed, I’m sure someone is chiding me right now for using a sentence fragment in this paragraph. Oh well.

(Yes, I am being a smart-aleck.)

But the reality is, my writing needs an edit. Yours does, too. No matter how accomplished a communicator you might be, the right set of fresh eyes will help ensure your writing is accurate and effective for your target audience. That’s why most of the time I welcome a constructive edit.

Having said that, I’ll point out an accompanying risk. A fresh and informed perspective is one thing; however, a lot of well-meaning editing spirals into that bane of effective communication, “writing by committee.”

Some organizations believe that having more people review a document will ensure a better document. This logic almost always fails. What might begin as a relatively crisp, accurate, targeted message is transformed into a confusing morass of meaningless phrases commonly called “corporate speak.” Such jargon-laden, vapid prose not only fails to accomplish its goal—to share important information with an audience—but it may have the opposite effect, causing the audience to misunderstand or mistrust the messenger.

Writing by committee is not the only source of corporate speak. Some of it arises from writers who are either too lazy or too discouraged after years of having their good stuff hacked up like Lizzie Borden’s parents. Much of it comes from the expectation of those whom the writer must satisfy; sadly, many business professionals have yet to find a five-syllable word they don’t like, and they are all too eager to add it if the writer won’t.

Unfortunately, this is a burden professional communicators will continue to bear. It remains our responsibility to stay true to the tenets of effective writing. Keep doing it well, keep demonstrating its value to your editors (good and bad), and—perhaps hardest of all—keep an open mind and heart when an editor tinkers with your baby.