When sports writers cover a beat for a while, they become experts on a team. To me, this means they should have a little wiggle room on what they can say in stories. Maybe they can throw in a little something into the article that makes the reader laugh, or maybe they can say something that they observed, that the coach or players didn't say.
What bothers me is the inconstancy in the editing practices among publications. When you pick up the Chicago tribune, the sports staff writers basically have their way in the writing process. The language used by K.C. Johnson would be considered editorializing by some, and witty, concise writing by others. But if you look at other publications, you find the standard lede, quote, paraphrase and repeat style.
Now I know columnists have this freedom because they are supposedly allowed to be biased toward whatever they like. When I speak about staff writers, I'm not talking about bias. I just mean that they all need the freedom to be creative and write what they see. They need to remain fair, but they can't be held back by an editorial choke-collar.
This will only take place when the there is a trust between the writer and editor. Obviously this takes time. But eventually the editor should lengthen the staff writer's lease slowly but surely until, and if, the staff writer proves they need to be reeled in.
Be free staff writers...
B
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
We're Talkin' About Practice
I'm calling out copy editors right now. Or better yet, I'm calling out people in charge of newspapers. I'm sick of the botched headlines, jumps and stats that I find in the sports section. Plain and simple, if you're a copy editor and you don't know a thing about sports, don't change something unless you ask.
And as for headlines, I think the reporters and columnists should write them. Is it really that hard for someone who already knows the article inside and out to throw down a headline? I'm not saying it's easy to write a headline, but the author of the article should be able to at least put something together that is free of sports-related errors.
People outside of the sports realm may think it isn't that big of a deal, but I'm here to tell you that it is. When I sit down and painstakingly search for statistics to go along with my story, I expect them to be checked, not decimated. When I write something that I am truly proud of, it's heartbreaking to wake up in the morning and see vomit printed in bold above my article.
This is why I am proposing that newspapers figure out a way to employ at least one copy editor that has some sports knowledge. I mean we're not talking about a lot of sports knowledge here ... just a little bit. They need to know the bullet points of sports, or at least have the patients to jump on a computer and look something up. If you don't have a sports background, please don't trust your sports instincts. That's just silly.
I understand that copy editors may feel like they don't get the appreciation they deserve. I will be the first to say they are absolutely necessary. Trust me, after taking my news editing class, I've realized they are a big part of the machine that is journalism. Without them, people would laugh at some articles they see in the newspaper each morning. But all I'm saying is that they need to step their game up and understand how bad it makes sports writers feel when they see glaring errors in their stories that weren't there to begin with.
Studying here at U of I, we are asked to get a broad education in news-editorial journalism because we are supposed to know a little about everything. But when your working at a newspaper, you can't forget this. Yes, it's important to know which piece of legislation is being passed by what court on what day. But how about who won the NCAA Tournament? I would argue that there are just as many people waking up to look at ESPN.com as there are checking their YAHOO NEWS.
I mean, honestly, I hope I didn't make any mistakes in this blog because I didn't have a copy editor look over it ... for real.
B
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Kid Rock feat. Sheryl Crow
I'm going to be totally honest and tell you that in my personal life and my life as a journalist, I have never really analyzed what pictures I think should and should not go into newspapers. So a lot of what I am going to say is coming from my gut.
As for the first set of pictures we analyzed in class that go in order to portray a man committing suicide, I have mixed feelings. Before we came to class today and learned that there was video of the suicide plastered all over the news, I would have said do not print those pictures. I just don't think a Joe Shmo who picks up the paper in the morning will better understand the situation by seeing a set of pictures. I think elaborate, but concise writing can do it justice.
But after class, I started thinking that to stay competitive, a newspaper should probably use one of the photos, because now that Joe Shmo has seen the story on the news, he probably expects to see an illistration of it the next morning.
As for the photo with the dog, I have absolutly no problem puting that in my paper. I love dogs in general and I love my dog, but if there's a good story behind it, it's in my paper. I think it was tasteful, and it had nothing that rubbed me the wrong way.
Now the picture with the dead child on the other hand definetly rubbed me the wrong way. There are very few circumstances, if any, that I would want a dead child's face in my newspaper. I think it's disrespectful, and really, the reader doesn't gain anything from seeing the face of the deceased. It's really none of our business. Leave their family alone unless they specifically grant permission for the photo to run. I don't want paparazzi pictures in my paper.
My opinion of the dead person in the news building is the exact same. Plain and simple, I don't want a dead face in my paper. How about just taking a picture of the scene with bullet holes and perhaps blood. No faces, no disrespect.
Now the kid with the bar through his face, to me, is something out of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Unless they are planning on running some public announcement about parents watching their children more carefully, or how you shouldn't jump metal fences with spikes on them, I just see no newsworthyness. And yes I just used that word. I feel like that is a picture you would find on a website of rediculous pictures. It should be the joke at the end of a safety video or something, not in my newspaper.
Now the picture that I thought the most about is the one with the women being groped in Seattle. My first reaction to that photo was horrer and anger at those idiots surrounding her. So that part of me wanted the picture on the front of every paper with her face blurred out and every one of those guy's faces kept in. That way the whole world can see how much of a low-life each of those people are. I wouldn't even mind if they got denied from a job or scholarship because of it. In fact, I would welcome it.
But then there's the rational side of me that says, you can't post that picture because it is a sexual assault. It's not fair to the woman because they couldn't reach her to ask permission, and it's also not fair to other women who have been assaulted that might pick up the paper.
But it still pisses me off that those guys don't get the embarrassment and shame of seeing their faces on every paper across America. But I guess I'll settle for their jail time.
B
As for the first set of pictures we analyzed in class that go in order to portray a man committing suicide, I have mixed feelings. Before we came to class today and learned that there was video of the suicide plastered all over the news, I would have said do not print those pictures. I just don't think a Joe Shmo who picks up the paper in the morning will better understand the situation by seeing a set of pictures. I think elaborate, but concise writing can do it justice.
But after class, I started thinking that to stay competitive, a newspaper should probably use one of the photos, because now that Joe Shmo has seen the story on the news, he probably expects to see an illistration of it the next morning.
As for the photo with the dog, I have absolutly no problem puting that in my paper. I love dogs in general and I love my dog, but if there's a good story behind it, it's in my paper. I think it was tasteful, and it had nothing that rubbed me the wrong way.
Now the picture with the dead child on the other hand definetly rubbed me the wrong way. There are very few circumstances, if any, that I would want a dead child's face in my newspaper. I think it's disrespectful, and really, the reader doesn't gain anything from seeing the face of the deceased. It's really none of our business. Leave their family alone unless they specifically grant permission for the photo to run. I don't want paparazzi pictures in my paper.
My opinion of the dead person in the news building is the exact same. Plain and simple, I don't want a dead face in my paper. How about just taking a picture of the scene with bullet holes and perhaps blood. No faces, no disrespect.
Now the kid with the bar through his face, to me, is something out of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Unless they are planning on running some public announcement about parents watching their children more carefully, or how you shouldn't jump metal fences with spikes on them, I just see no newsworthyness. And yes I just used that word. I feel like that is a picture you would find on a website of rediculous pictures. It should be the joke at the end of a safety video or something, not in my newspaper.
Now the picture that I thought the most about is the one with the women being groped in Seattle. My first reaction to that photo was horrer and anger at those idiots surrounding her. So that part of me wanted the picture on the front of every paper with her face blurred out and every one of those guy's faces kept in. That way the whole world can see how much of a low-life each of those people are. I wouldn't even mind if they got denied from a job or scholarship because of it. In fact, I would welcome it.
But then there's the rational side of me that says, you can't post that picture because it is a sexual assault. It's not fair to the woman because they couldn't reach her to ask permission, and it's also not fair to other women who have been assaulted that might pick up the paper.
But it still pisses me off that those guys don't get the embarrassment and shame of seeing their faces on every paper across America. But I guess I'll settle for their jail time.
B
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)