Leslie, thanks for your very useful post on how to prevent your colleagues
from doing excessive violence to the pieces we send in. I suspect that
journalistic practices are similar everywhere, and (if you don't object)I'd
like to copy your message to my co-workers here in California.
-Dick Jacobs
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Harris [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 6:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Of writers and editors
I have been following the language debate with interest and have a few
observations about the practical difficulties journalists and editors face.
I have worked on both sides of the fence in hournalism - first as a
reporter, and now as a copy-editor. I quikly learned that once copy is
submitted to the newsdesk, the reporter loses almost all claims to its
contents. The best you can hope for is a sensitive copy editor who prefers
to whittle text rather than slash it. They are rare. Too often what appears
in print under a reporter's byline bears very little resemblance to the
copy that was submitted. Suggested headlines are almost never retained.
Copy-editors face different pressures. First, the copy has to be edited to
conform with the style of the publication. And it has to be made to fit the
space allocated. Particularly in newspapers, the advertiser is king, and
stories are placed on a page around and between the ads. If new ads arrive
late in the day, stories are cut again (and again) to accommodate the
advert.
When the publication's style outlaws acronyms, as some do, the problem is
exacerbated - the phrase "people with disabilities" for example can be
almost one line in a column. In such cases the phrase "disabled people"
(which appears acceptable to most and preferable to some in this country)
is often substituted. And when even that is too long one tends to see "the
disabled". At least one disability activist I know finds that term
acceptable.
That said, there are some tricks which might help the piece survive
relatively unscathed:
* Before submitting anything yourself, contact the news editor of the
publication and find out what sort of space s/he is likely to allocate.
*Us the active tense, not the passive. It is shorter and more interesting
for the reader.
*Write the piece so that it can be edited easily - indicate which
paragraphs can be excised, and which are crucial to the article.
*Make all the important points close to the beginning - most editors lop
paragraphs off the end when cutting.
*Use short words (eg "about" instead of "approximately")
*Use words, not phrases (eg "because" rather than "as a result of")
*Newspaper editors and academics have different ideas of what a long
article is - most news stories are between 250 and 350 words, a feature
could be as long as 500 words, and op-ed feature articles are about 800 to
900 words. These numbers might vary from publication to publication. They
are accurate for the newspaper I work at. As an example, I was recently
assigned a closely argued op-ed item that was about 1000 words, with the
instruction "Very long - slash and burn". I had to cut it to 650 words...
These points don't guarantee that the piece will appear in print as you
would like it to, but they do improve the odds. Unfortunately, many
journalists break most of the above rules when writing their itmes. And, in
many publications, there is often an adversarial relationship between the
reporting staff (journalists) and production staff (copy editors) wich can
make things difficult.
Apologies for the wordiness, and I hope this helps.
Les
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|