...numbers.
I become very frustrated when numbers are misused, because as a former math major, I sort of love them like I love language. (Except differential equations, I could never stomach those nasty little things.)
I become more frustrated when people whose job it is to understand the numbers attempt to avoid them like I avoid phone calls from Blockbuster when my two-week-old movie is still in my DVD player. Hey, guess what... it's a journalist's job to deal with numbers.
That said, many journalists do not like numbers and would prefer not to spend their time crunching numbers. The number of numerical errors that slip into newspapers has been stated and restated ad nauseum.
Instead of pounding numbers into the heads of people who do not like them and who tend to be more word-inclined, it seems a solution might be to have a dedicated numbers editor. I know the last thing newspapers want is to hire more staff, but this would increase efficiency -- the numbers person, who knows what they are doing, could crunch all figures and stats, and edit any part of a story with any number whatsoever. Knowing what they were doing and unhindered by a dislike for the work, they would work efficiently and leave the reporters free to report and write and continue the rest of their one-man band. But maybe we could take at least this one man out of the band and give him his own instrument.
3.21.2009
check this out!
Where this = everything.
This is what I now do, check every single little thing out to make sure it is correct.
Last year when I bought my AP Stylebook, I sort of thought the whole thing was silly. After all, the Stylebook is composed of arbitrary conventions that AP has decided its writers should use.
I started looking up words and phrases (Is it Capital Hill or Capitol Hill?) when I had to for my editing class on quizzes. But I quickly developed an editor's eye and began looking up suspicious words at all times. I found myself pulling out the Stylebook for research papers, memos, and even activities I design for my Spanish students.
It's not just the Stylebook; whereas before I found minor conventions to be, well, minor, I have begun to realize their importance. I find myself having the need to check things out where I would have passed over small details before.
In the letter of interest I just e-mailed to a prospective employer, I found myself googling the company name to find out if it is Proworld, ProWorld, or Pro World (the second is correct). It's not that I would have refused to do this before, but it probably wouldn't have even occurred to me. Look, I just looked up how to spell occurred in the dictionary. And this is my personal blog, and I never would have cared before.
My desire to know (not just the big stuff, but the devil of the details too now) is growing exponentially. This class is good for me.
This is what I now do, check every single little thing out to make sure it is correct.
Last year when I bought my AP Stylebook, I sort of thought the whole thing was silly. After all, the Stylebook is composed of arbitrary conventions that AP has decided its writers should use.
I started looking up words and phrases (Is it Capital Hill or Capitol Hill?) when I had to for my editing class on quizzes. But I quickly developed an editor's eye and began looking up suspicious words at all times. I found myself pulling out the Stylebook for research papers, memos, and even activities I design for my Spanish students.
It's not just the Stylebook; whereas before I found minor conventions to be, well, minor, I have begun to realize their importance. I find myself having the need to check things out where I would have passed over small details before.
In the letter of interest I just e-mailed to a prospective employer, I found myself googling the company name to find out if it is Proworld, ProWorld, or Pro World (the second is correct). It's not that I would have refused to do this before, but it probably wouldn't have even occurred to me. Look, I just looked up how to spell occurred in the dictionary. And this is my personal blog, and I never would have cared before.
My desire to know (not just the big stuff, but the devil of the details too now) is growing exponentially. This class is good for me.
3.11.2009
"*** ***** ** this"
Do you know what words the above stars refer to?
Neither do I. I suppose English offers hundreds of possibilities.
And this is one problem that I have with the deletion of expletives from quotes in newspapers. I'm preparing to write a paper examining the issue, focusing how Blagojevich's "bleeping golden" comments were edited (or not) and printed.
At first, I was prepared to argue that there is no difference between "f---" and "fuck" (no, I do not edit myself) because both words refer to the exact same thing, and have the same meaning. This seems akin to saying "gato" (from Spanish) and "cat" have the same meaning.
However, I spoke with a linguist who talked about the idea of creating a linguistic community. She pointed out that only "in" members of the community can interpret coded messages with deleted letters. So when I use "f***", I am speaking in code, and assuming that readers will be able to understand what I mean. This creates a feeling of trust and connection.
In addition, readers who aren't "in" are unable to interpret the message. For those who are interested in protecting children from foul language, this is important. A child who doesn't already know the word "fuck" could learn it from reading this blog entry, or a news story with unedited quotes, but he won't start saying it after reading a censored version.
Another consideration is that the words are shocking, and this may be important to express the full weight of the context. For instance, Blago swore repeatedly, and I think this says something about the situation, and about his personality and attitude. I'm not sure if this could be conveyed as well using "expletive deleted." I think that when situations are offensive, sometimes the reader needs to be offended, because offense if the appropriate response.
Thoughts?
Neither do I. I suppose English offers hundreds of possibilities.
And this is one problem that I have with the deletion of expletives from quotes in newspapers. I'm preparing to write a paper examining the issue, focusing how Blagojevich's "bleeping golden" comments were edited (or not) and printed.
At first, I was prepared to argue that there is no difference between "f---" and "fuck" (no, I do not edit myself) because both words refer to the exact same thing, and have the same meaning. This seems akin to saying "gato" (from Spanish) and "cat" have the same meaning.
However, I spoke with a linguist who talked about the idea of creating a linguistic community. She pointed out that only "in" members of the community can interpret coded messages with deleted letters. So when I use "f***", I am speaking in code, and assuming that readers will be able to understand what I mean. This creates a feeling of trust and connection.
In addition, readers who aren't "in" are unable to interpret the message. For those who are interested in protecting children from foul language, this is important. A child who doesn't already know the word "fuck" could learn it from reading this blog entry, or a news story with unedited quotes, but he won't start saying it after reading a censored version.
Another consideration is that the words are shocking, and this may be important to express the full weight of the context. For instance, Blago swore repeatedly, and I think this says something about the situation, and about his personality and attitude. I'm not sure if this could be conveyed as well using "expletive deleted." I think that when situations are offensive, sometimes the reader needs to be offended, because offense if the appropriate response.
Thoughts?
3.03.2009
Disappointing reporting
On my way home from the gym the other morning, I saw what is becoming a familiar scene of mangled steel and wrecked concrete at the overpass on Springfield Avenue near Neil in Champaign.
A semi had ignored the low height and driven right into the underpass, getting about four feet in before it became stuck.
In the year and a half I have lived in Chambana, I've witnessed stuck trucks here three times. Three times in less than two years! That is ridiculous. And yes, the overpass is low... apparently much lower than most. It's marked with a small yellow sign announcing its height and blinking yellow lights that must be all too easy for a sleepy truck driver to overlook.
I excercised an impulse that I think few people share with me in these times, which was to look to the local newspaper for an explanation of the event. To its credit, the News-Gazette ran a photo with a great, unique angle as the main art on the front page the next day. It's too bad I can't find the photo; it really says it all.
But the reporting was lackluster.
The Gazette reported the event as if it were a funny oddity instead of an apparently serious problem. For one, it is lucky that no one is injured in these crashes. Secondly, this damage costs the truck companies and likely the city money in repairs. And thirdly, there is no reason for a city to have an overpass that trucks periodically crash into.
I wanted to know why this keeps happening, and who, if anyone, will do anything about it.
But the caption failed to even make mention of the other recent events.
A semi had ignored the low height and driven right into the underpass, getting about four feet in before it became stuck.
In the year and a half I have lived in Chambana, I've witnessed stuck trucks here three times. Three times in less than two years! That is ridiculous. And yes, the overpass is low... apparently much lower than most. It's marked with a small yellow sign announcing its height and blinking yellow lights that must be all too easy for a sleepy truck driver to overlook.
I excercised an impulse that I think few people share with me in these times, which was to look to the local newspaper for an explanation of the event. To its credit, the News-Gazette ran a photo with a great, unique angle as the main art on the front page the next day. It's too bad I can't find the photo; it really says it all.
But the reporting was lackluster.
The Gazette reported the event as if it were a funny oddity instead of an apparently serious problem. For one, it is lucky that no one is injured in these crashes. Secondly, this damage costs the truck companies and likely the city money in repairs. And thirdly, there is no reason for a city to have an overpass that trucks periodically crash into.
I wanted to know why this keeps happening, and who, if anyone, will do anything about it.
But the caption failed to even make mention of the other recent events.
2.25.2009
hard-to-see photos
We saw in class this week, and were asked to make news decisions for several gruesome photos.
Editors must decide every day when such photos are necessary to tell the story, when they are appropriate, when they offend too much, when they provide too much of a shock to swallow with morning coffee.
I believe that the shock value of a photo should correspond to the weight of the story. Disturbing, bloody events occur around the world daily, weekly, milisecondly. But when something important happens, and it is disturbing, readers need to be disturbed through images that convey the intensity of a situation.
In the case of Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer's suicide, I would use the first photo, when he pulls out the gun, but not later ones that show the gun in his mouth or his death. The situation is an intense one, and since it involves a public official in a public meeting, readers should be made aware through the dramatic photo with the gun. However, the situation is less than monumental, so readers should be spared the full gruesomeness; to show it would just be dramatization.
For a less wide-sweeping issue, I would err on the side of caution more. For instance, I don't think I would run photo, because the victim's tragedy is private, not public. The public doesn't need to be shocked here, and the family doesn't need their tragedy aired all over the media to make a point.
For a case like 9/11, I would have aired some of the most intense photos because this *was* a monumental moment, and the public needed the full effect to grasp the intensity and horror of the situation.
In summary: intensity of photos should be weighted to importance and far-reachingness of story.
Editors must decide every day when such photos are necessary to tell the story, when they are appropriate, when they offend too much, when they provide too much of a shock to swallow with morning coffee.
I believe that the shock value of a photo should correspond to the weight of the story. Disturbing, bloody events occur around the world daily, weekly, milisecondly. But when something important happens, and it is disturbing, readers need to be disturbed through images that convey the intensity of a situation.
In the case of Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer's suicide, I would use the first photo, when he pulls out the gun, but not later ones that show the gun in his mouth or his death. The situation is an intense one, and since it involves a public official in a public meeting, readers should be made aware through the dramatic photo with the gun. However, the situation is less than monumental, so readers should be spared the full gruesomeness; to show it would just be dramatization.
For a less wide-sweeping issue, I would err on the side of caution more. For instance, I don't think I would run photo, because the victim's tragedy is private, not public. The public doesn't need to be shocked here, and the family doesn't need their tragedy aired all over the media to make a point.
For a case like 9/11, I would have aired some of the most intense photos because this *was* a monumental moment, and the public needed the full effect to grasp the intensity and horror of the situation.
In summary: intensity of photos should be weighted to importance and far-reachingness of story.
2.18.2009
montages
In my news editing class this week, we discussed this video from the BBC, which includes quotes from Obama's inauguration speech.
The Poynter institute accused the BBC of twisting Obama's quotes to make it seems like he was talking about alternative energy when he was really talking about science in general and health care specfically. BBC claimed it was using the quotes in "montage" format and that they were not intended to be interpreted as one continuous piece.
My first reaction was to ask myself: Journalists splice quotes often in news stories. I know I've taken what I considered irrelevant parts out of the middle of quotes before, joining two sentences that were not in fact said together by the speaker. Usually I stick in "s/he said" between the spliced quotes to separate them, but not always.
So is this wrong?
Worse, the BBC actually reversed the order of two of the quotes. And I again ask myself, what have I done? I'm sure I've separated two sentences spoken one after another by a source and put them in different paragraphs, maybe with some of my own words and other information in between, or other quotes in between.
And then maybe I've decided to change the order of topics in the story, and suddenly the quotes are reversed, and in the wrong order.
So is *this* wrong?
I don't know.
Obviously preserving the meaning is important. We try to do this. But to discern what a speaker really meant is difficult. And I wonder if I would be upset having my words spliced and diced and shuffled around like that to make a story flow better, if I were the interviewee.
It's tough to say.
But I will say that my initial reaction upon hearing the BBC video was to notice the clear cutoffs at the end of each quote, which indicated to me that the speech was not continuous. Also, something about the tone of the video signaled to me, "collection of Obama's various thoughts on topic X" But if it wasn't this way for everyone, then maybe it was misleading.
Thoughts?
The Poynter institute accused the BBC of twisting Obama's quotes to make it seems like he was talking about alternative energy when he was really talking about science in general and health care specfically. BBC claimed it was using the quotes in "montage" format and that they were not intended to be interpreted as one continuous piece.
My first reaction was to ask myself: Journalists splice quotes often in news stories. I know I've taken what I considered irrelevant parts out of the middle of quotes before, joining two sentences that were not in fact said together by the speaker. Usually I stick in "s/he said" between the spliced quotes to separate them, but not always.
So is this wrong?
Worse, the BBC actually reversed the order of two of the quotes. And I again ask myself, what have I done? I'm sure I've separated two sentences spoken one after another by a source and put them in different paragraphs, maybe with some of my own words and other information in between, or other quotes in between.
And then maybe I've decided to change the order of topics in the story, and suddenly the quotes are reversed, and in the wrong order.
So is *this* wrong?
I don't know.
Obviously preserving the meaning is important. We try to do this. But to discern what a speaker really meant is difficult. And I wonder if I would be upset having my words spliced and diced and shuffled around like that to make a story flow better, if I were the interviewee.
It's tough to say.
But I will say that my initial reaction upon hearing the BBC video was to notice the clear cutoffs at the end of each quote, which indicated to me that the speech was not continuous. Also, something about the tone of the video signaled to me, "collection of Obama's various thoughts on topic X" But if it wasn't this way for everyone, then maybe it was misleading.
Thoughts?
2.10.2009
So I do have a few...
grammar pet peeves.
Last entry, I boldly proclaimed myself as a descriptivist of language. Now I am going to counter that and sort of backpeddle a bit. The descriptivist in me has taken note of a few grammar points that I see broken every day, and I expect I will continue to see even more.
Apostrophes: people love them. A little too much. Well, I think what is happening is that people have been so bashed for leaving them out in "it's" (contraction) and mixing up "your"/"you're" and "their"/"they're"/"there" that they have become hyperzealous about the punctuation mark, so afraid of leaving it out that they stick it in everywhere. Plurals are commonly taking on apostrophes.
I was first outraged to see a sign at my high school talking about "ID's" (as in identification cards) several years ago. My professor speaks of his "TA's," and I have even seen it recently with non-caps plurals too. It perplexed me because there is no cause for an apostrophe -- they're used for possession and contractions -- but I think it makes people nervous to see especially capitalized plurals and then that naked "s". And the more they see it misused, the more it will *be* misused.
Adjectives vs. adverbial phrases. My friend Lee, a Spanish linguist, is embarking on an incredibly interesting study. At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag, she is looking at how people misuse time phrases such as "every day." "Everyday" -- one word -- is an adjective.
"Misusing these words is an *everyday* occurrence" (everyday modifies occurrence).
Every day -- two words -- is an adverbial phrase.
"No, really, it happens *every day* (every day modifies happens)."
There are several other phrases that I wish I could remember, but the point is the lines are being blurred through analogy ("although" is one word; is "eventhough"?). I had not noticed this phenomenon at all until our discussion, but now I see these mixings-up every day (or is it everyday?) in reputable sources. I saw it one day on a Dove candy wrapper.
I also wonder this: language changes. Grammar changes. We no longer say "thee" and "thou." How long will it take for these errors to become standardized? And at what point would AP change their standard? It's too early to call the changes standardized right now, far too early, but will AP be ahead of the curve or behind it?
Last entry, I boldly proclaimed myself as a descriptivist of language. Now I am going to counter that and sort of backpeddle a bit. The descriptivist in me has taken note of a few grammar points that I see broken every day, and I expect I will continue to see even more.
Apostrophes: people love them. A little too much. Well, I think what is happening is that people have been so bashed for leaving them out in "it's" (contraction) and mixing up "your"/"you're" and "their"/"they're"/"there" that they have become hyperzealous about the punctuation mark, so afraid of leaving it out that they stick it in everywhere. Plurals are commonly taking on apostrophes.
I was first outraged to see a sign at my high school talking about "ID's" (as in identification cards) several years ago. My professor speaks of his "TA's," and I have even seen it recently with non-caps plurals too. It perplexed me because there is no cause for an apostrophe -- they're used for possession and contractions -- but I think it makes people nervous to see especially capitalized plurals and then that naked "s". And the more they see it misused, the more it will *be* misused.
Adjectives vs. adverbial phrases. My friend Lee, a Spanish linguist, is embarking on an incredibly interesting study. At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag, she is looking at how people misuse time phrases such as "every day." "Everyday" -- one word -- is an adjective.
"Misusing these words is an *everyday* occurrence" (everyday modifies occurrence).
Every day -- two words -- is an adverbial phrase.
"No, really, it happens *every day* (every day modifies happens)."
There are several other phrases that I wish I could remember, but the point is the lines are being blurred through analogy ("although" is one word; is "eventhough"?). I had not noticed this phenomenon at all until our discussion, but now I see these mixings-up every day (or is it everyday?) in reputable sources. I saw it one day on a Dove candy wrapper.
I also wonder this: language changes. Grammar changes. We no longer say "thee" and "thou." How long will it take for these errors to become standardized? And at what point would AP change their standard? It's too early to call the changes standardized right now, far too early, but will AP be ahead of the curve or behind it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
