What's the deal with the AP Stylebook entry on "versus," anyway?
You're supposed to spell it out in most situations and us "v." for court cases. Therefore, you'd write about "his plan for peeling potatoes versus her plan for making coleslaw." You would cover continuing controversy about "Roe v. Wade."
That's right. "Roe v. Wade."
Who actually, in their everyday life, uses the word this way? Doesn't just about everyone use "vs."? Wouldn't you use "vs."? I know I would. So why does the Associated Press do this? I doubt many AP people follow it.
I'm cranky and traditionalist in many areas. But I don't see what we gain by avoiding the use of "vs." (Yes, I know AP allows it in short expressions; that's not enough.) Let common sense and common usage prevail.
This is the archived edition of a blog (first titled Copy Massage)
kept from Sept. 4, 2003, to June 4, 2007, by Clay Wirestone.
The original description: "Twentysomething editor / designer /
reviewer / blogger / cartoonist Clay McCuistion muses on copy,
editing and the changing media landscape."
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
"Efforting" News
The Hartford Courant addresses the efforting debate. I figure this blog deserved a mention, given that I first took on the word more than a year ago. But no.
Also, if you search for "efforting" on Google, this site now comes back as the third response. Not that I'm keeping track or anything.
Also, if you search for "efforting" on Google, this site now comes back as the third response. Not that I'm keeping track or anything.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Derivative Points
Thanks to Nicole of A Capital Idea for spotlighting these copy-editing related items.
First, from a Detroit Free Press article about author Elmore Leonard. He's written a serial novel for the NYT Magazine.
Nicole posted this awhile back, and she said she was skeptical about it. I'd like to add my voice to hers. This is nonsense. The chance that a copy editor at the Times -- a superbly well-edited newspaper / Web site / magazine / whatever else -- actually pestered Elmore Leonard about style seems slim.
Copy editors are vulnerable because we deal with details. We work on a level of detail that baffles others. Like Elmore Leonard, we sweat every word. And we sweat every word for the same reason he does. We care about the overall picture. Those details affect how people see the newspaper /Web site / magazine /whatever else.
Part of managing details, of course, is knowing when to leave deviations from style alone. It's knowing when the rules can be bent or broken. If I know that, I trust the editors of the Times know that.
Permit me a theory. I suspect that a copy editor found incorrect word usage or factual errors and told Leonard. I suspect that annoyed the author, and he decided to exact a little revenge by painting us as anal-retentive creeps. Grrr.
On to a second item from Nicole.
This classic clips comes from a "yes, we make mistakes," article from the Post & Mail of Columbia City, Ind.
Nicole didn't quote the first two paragraphs, but I think them the most remarkable. I know folks that have worked at the AP, and while most enjoyed it, I doubt they would refer to it as the "pinnacle" of journalism. I also wonder if the intern author of this piece has ever spent time just reading the wire. If so, he'd quickly notice that mistakes happen all the time in AP copy. That's one of the reasons they update stories regularly.
I don't know who told this poor kid that AP stories couldn't be changed, but they shouldn't take advantage of an innocent.
First, from a Detroit Free Press article about author Elmore Leonard. He's written a serial novel for the NYT Magazine.
It's the first time Leonard has written serial fiction for a newspaper. It's the first time he's written a serial, period. The work took him all summer and really cut into his tennis playing.
And that was before the Times copy editors got it. Now, the idea of Elmore Leonard and his expletive-spouting bad guys being edited for a newspaper that still identifies women as Mrs. So-and-So is hilarious. In time, Leonard will probably think it's funny, too.
Right now, though, he's listing the things that the detail-oriented Times editors said were no-nos. "Getting laid." The Gray Lady's gatekeepers X'd that one.
"Arkansas." Arkansas? In newspaper style, it's abbreviated Ark.
But what if a person is saying "Arkansas"? You still abbreviate, because it's in the stylebook. Even if you're writing fiction, it seems.
Sutter fought the Times' copy editors on that one, and you can see his victory in Chapter 2. But Sutter's still hot about it.
"They don't realize this guy's got a sound. Every word. Ar-kan-saw. That's a big word for Elmore," Sutter says. "He sweats every word."
Nicole posted this awhile back, and she said she was skeptical about it. I'd like to add my voice to hers. This is nonsense. The chance that a copy editor at the Times -- a superbly well-edited newspaper / Web site / magazine / whatever else -- actually pestered Elmore Leonard about style seems slim.
Copy editors are vulnerable because we deal with details. We work on a level of detail that baffles others. Like Elmore Leonard, we sweat every word. And we sweat every word for the same reason he does. We care about the overall picture. Those details affect how people see the newspaper /Web site / magazine /whatever else.
Part of managing details, of course, is knowing when to leave deviations from style alone. It's knowing when the rules can be bent or broken. If I know that, I trust the editors of the Times know that.
Permit me a theory. I suspect that a copy editor found incorrect word usage or factual errors and told Leonard. I suspect that annoyed the author, and he decided to exact a little revenge by painting us as anal-retentive creeps. Grrr.
On to a second item from Nicole.
This classic clips comes from a "yes, we make mistakes," article from the Post & Mail of Columbia City, Ind.
For starters take Associated Press stories. Writing for the AP is a dream many or all journalists have at some point because it is seen as the pinnacle of journalism, but even they make mistakes.
Mistakes don't happen often, but occasionally an AP story will be used that has a grammatical error, missing word, double word or something else wrong with it.
Newspapers are not allowed to make ANY changes to an AP story, no matter how glaring it may be. It's a rule we must follow and sometimes the story with an error is the only one on the topic, and if it's important enough we have to run it.
The only exception to changing an AP story is cutting off paragraphs at the bottom so the story will fit.
Nicole didn't quote the first two paragraphs, but I think them the most remarkable. I know folks that have worked at the AP, and while most enjoyed it, I doubt they would refer to it as the "pinnacle" of journalism. I also wonder if the intern author of this piece has ever spent time just reading the wire. If so, he'd quickly notice that mistakes happen all the time in AP copy. That's one of the reasons they update stories regularly.
I don't know who told this poor kid that AP stories couldn't be changed, but they shouldn't take advantage of an innocent.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Change in the 2005 AP Stylebook
Apparently, "backyard" now should be one word in all uses, both as adjective and noun.
In previous editions, "backyard" was the form for adjectives — as in "backyard barbecue." "Back yard" was the place — "We ate barbecue in the back yard."
The old rule may have required thought, but it made sense. It preserved the notion of a "yard" as a separate place. You can have one both in front or in back (or to the side, I suppose) of your home. We don't have "frontyards," we have "front yards."
The single-word adjectival form simply acknowledged that the words "back" and "yard" had grown close together in common usage.
The AP gave into people who didn't want to learn a logical, simple rule. It chose convenience over sense.
I know the change has been out for a while, and folks have probably discussed it. But I just happened to be thinking about it, and thought I'd vent. Thanks.
In previous editions, "backyard" was the form for adjectives — as in "backyard barbecue." "Back yard" was the place — "We ate barbecue in the back yard."
The old rule may have required thought, but it made sense. It preserved the notion of a "yard" as a separate place. You can have one both in front or in back (or to the side, I suppose) of your home. We don't have "frontyards," we have "front yards."
The single-word adjectival form simply acknowledged that the words "back" and "yard" had grown close together in common usage.
The AP gave into people who didn't want to learn a logical, simple rule. It chose convenience over sense.
I know the change has been out for a while, and folks have probably discussed it. But I just happened to be thinking about it, and thought I'd vent. Thanks.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Grammar Versus Style
The two aren't the same.
This came up recently, when I was discussing the difference between the words "convince" and "persuade" with a co-worker. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, you convince someone that or of something. You persuade someone to do something. Convincing takes place in a conceptual realm. It doesn't lead to physical action, but mental acceptance. Persuading goes further. It involves pushing someone to take real, concrete steps.
Anyway, that's what AP and other style manuals say. I explained this. My co-worker then asked if that distinction really made sense, given that many use the words interchangeably. I hemmed and hawed, then acknowledged little difference exists between the words in common usage.
That's not the point, though. Editors follow many rules that don't necessarily make language more grammatical. Newspaper usage does not equal common usage.
The AP stylebook and similar reference works don't exist to teach newspaper copy editors grammar. Generally, these books assume familiarity with language. They exist to establish a standard of usage for serious news reporting. They exist so readers can know that important stories will be conveyed in clear, understandable prose, free from jargon or slang. They exist for the sake of consistency.
Copy editors should know style. They should, most of the time, follow it. But they should also be aware when it diverges from common usage, and why. To my mind, the "convince/persuade" distinction still has value. The words still suggest slightly different concepts.
But as time passes, and common usage flattens the differences further, perhaps AP editors will remove the style rule. It won't be the first time.
This came up recently, when I was discussing the difference between the words "convince" and "persuade" with a co-worker. According to the Associated Press Stylebook, you convince someone that or of something. You persuade someone to do something. Convincing takes place in a conceptual realm. It doesn't lead to physical action, but mental acceptance. Persuading goes further. It involves pushing someone to take real, concrete steps.
Anyway, that's what AP and other style manuals say. I explained this. My co-worker then asked if that distinction really made sense, given that many use the words interchangeably. I hemmed and hawed, then acknowledged little difference exists between the words in common usage.
That's not the point, though. Editors follow many rules that don't necessarily make language more grammatical. Newspaper usage does not equal common usage.
The AP stylebook and similar reference works don't exist to teach newspaper copy editors grammar. Generally, these books assume familiarity with language. They exist to establish a standard of usage for serious news reporting. They exist so readers can know that important stories will be conveyed in clear, understandable prose, free from jargon or slang. They exist for the sake of consistency.
Copy editors should know style. They should, most of the time, follow it. But they should also be aware when it diverges from common usage, and why. To my mind, the "convince/persuade" distinction still has value. The words still suggest slightly different concepts.
But as time passes, and common usage flattens the differences further, perhaps AP editors will remove the style rule. It won't be the first time.
Home Countries
I've enjoyed posting the search terms that lead Web surfers here. (Perhaps too much so? Perhaps.) What I haven't posted, until now, are readers' home countries. You didn't know that I tracked such things from my luxurious penthouse suite in Copy Massage world headquarters? I do.
Without further ado, then, the top 20 Copy Massage countries.
1.) United States — 8085 visits
2.) Canada — 231
3.) Australia — 157
4.) United Kingdom — 145
5.) India — 104
6.) Norway — 93
7.) France — 81
8.) South Africa — 50
9.) Belgium — 46
10.) Germany — 40
11.) Philippines — 40
12.) Netherlands — 29
13.) Malaysia — 28
14.) Denmark — 27
15.) Italy — 27
16.) Hong Kong — 25
17.) New Zealand — 24
18.) Japan — 24
19.) Finland — 23
20.) Singapore — 21
Without further ado, then, the top 20 Copy Massage countries.
1.) United States — 8085 visits
2.) Canada — 231
3.) Australia — 157
4.) United Kingdom — 145
5.) India — 104
6.) Norway — 93
7.) France — 81
8.) South Africa — 50
9.) Belgium — 46
10.) Germany — 40
11.) Philippines — 40
12.) Netherlands — 29
13.) Malaysia — 28
14.) Denmark — 27
15.) Italy — 27
16.) Hong Kong — 25
17.) New Zealand — 24
18.) Japan — 24
19.) Finland — 23
20.) Singapore — 21
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The Importance of Writing
It wasn't until I started working one-on-one with reporters in my current job that I realized how important it was for copy editors to write. I would go through a story with the person responsible for it sitting to my right. They looked to me for an opinion, for judgment, for appraisal.
I had to edit the story for grammar and clarity, of course, but I had a more basic purpose. I had to edit the story, period.
This wasn't how it worked in Tampa. There, when a story came on my computer screen, I could be reasonably sure that it had been read by a couple of other people. I knew its structure, its outline, had found approval elsewhere in the building. My job was to polish the story, detect any flaws and present it to the world in the best way possible.
I'm still learning this new, comprehensive approach. Yet once I started it, I knew that I had to write. I had to write for print. I knew that I had to put myself into the shoes of that person sitting to my right.
No, I didn't rush out and start covering fires. Instead, I began reviewing books. I've written a half-dozen reviews so far, and I've enjoyed the process immensely. It reminded me how difficult it can be to put words down. It reminded me how much pressure exists for an on-deadline reporter. It reminded me how it feels having someone pass judgment on a piece you slaved over to create.
Copy editors need to know this. We don't need to know it so we can pull or punches or somehow abdicate our responsibility as critical eyes. We need to know it so we can communicate with reporters. We need to know it so we understand the writing process. We need to know it so we don't heedlessly slash words that aren't essential but that make sentences better.
Blogs don't quite cut it. Neither does writing a diary or journal. The writing should be for print and ideally edited by someone else. That's key. Put the shoe on the other foot.
Although this revelation came to me at a smaller paper, there's no reason it shouldn't apply at bigger ones. In Tampa, I was more removed from the process, but that didn't make comprehension of it less important. For my colleagues in those environments, I would advise: Find something to write about. Pitch a story. Ask to cover a cops shift some night. You may not find the simple outlet I did, but you can find something.
Who knows? You might have fun along the way.
This wasn't how it worked in Tampa. There, when a story came on my computer screen, I could be reasonably sure that it had been read by a couple of other people. I knew its structure, its outline, had found approval elsewhere in the building. My job was to polish the story, detect any flaws and present it to the world in the best way possible.
I'm still learning this new, comprehensive approach. Yet once I started it, I knew that I had to write. I had to write for print. I knew that I had to put myself into the shoes of that person sitting to my right.
No, I didn't rush out and start covering fires. Instead, I began reviewing books. I've written a half-dozen reviews so far, and I've enjoyed the process immensely. It reminded me how difficult it can be to put words down. It reminded me how much pressure exists for an on-deadline reporter. It reminded me how it feels having someone pass judgment on a piece you slaved over to create.
Copy editors need to know this. We don't need to know it so we can pull or punches or somehow abdicate our responsibility as critical eyes. We need to know it so we can communicate with reporters. We need to know it so we understand the writing process. We need to know it so we don't heedlessly slash words that aren't essential but that make sentences better.
Blogs don't quite cut it. Neither does writing a diary or journal. The writing should be for print and ideally edited by someone else. That's key. Put the shoe on the other foot.
Although this revelation came to me at a smaller paper, there's no reason it shouldn't apply at bigger ones. In Tampa, I was more removed from the process, but that didn't make comprehension of it less important. For my colleagues in those environments, I would advise: Find something to write about. Pitch a story. Ask to cover a cops shift some night. You may not find the simple outlet I did, but you can find something.
Who knows? You might have fun along the way.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Google 'Efforting' Update
Thanks to the efforts (ha) of loyal Copy Massage readers, this blog now shows up in the No. 5 and No. 6 spots on a Google search for the word "efforting." Way to go!
I'll admit, that climb generates ambivalence. Out of all the topics covered here for the past two years, I never expected that little abomination to drive so much traffic. Why not a more pleasant subject, like the that/which distinction? Or a more pleasant word, like "nuzzle"?
Of course, I never expected that so many people visiting a blog about copy editing would want information about massages, either.
Of course, I never expected that so many people visiting a blog about copy editing would want information about massages, either.
Blog Alert! Blog Alert!
The comment on the post from Oct. 7 rang a bell here in Copy Massage headquarters. Could it be? Indeed it is! It's from a former coworker and supervisor, Chris.
He has a blog of his own, it appears, called Bleating Kansas. Not as much persnickety evilness there as here, but he seems to be actually posting, so that's a plus.
Head on over and show him some love, why don't you? No, not like that. That's gross.
He has a blog of his own, it appears, called Bleating Kansas. Not as much persnickety evilness there as here, but he seems to be actually posting, so that's a plus.
Head on over and show him some love, why don't you? No, not like that. That's gross.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Easy Gripes, Sprinkled With Self-Justification
These are three of the easiest mistakes to prevent in copy. So why do people make them?
Listen, I don't like playing the role of a hectoring grouch. I know I've written about the first of these mistakes a couple of times before. I've probably hinted at the other two as well. Nothing would please me more than writing about puppies, or kittens, or flying kites on a bright summer's day.
But the mistakes continue. I must confront them. I step into my hectoring grouch costume, and the heroic struggle continues.
1.) It's/Its.
One of the most common slips. You use the apostrophe when you're contracting "it" and "is." When you make "it" possessive, you do not use an apostrophe.
2.) Affect/Effect
The first is a verb. The second is a noun (it can sometimes be a verb, but that needn't concern us here). They can be easily confused, so take a moment to remember.
"It affected me deeply."
"It must have had a great effect, then."
3.) Comma Rule
Many exist. I gripe about one. If you have two complete thoughts joined by linking word such as "and" or "but," put a comma before the linking word.
Thus:
"She enjoyed roller-skating, and she was good at it."
If the second part of the sentence doesn't have a subject, the thought is no longer complete. You therefore do not use the comma.
"She enjoyed roller-skating and was good at it."
Sunday, October 9, 2005
More (Is Less) on Mickey
I planned to rant more about Mr. Kaus and his — to put it kindly — dubious post about copy editors. Even if reporters wrote perfect copy, it's not at though headlines and page layouts would appear by magic. And no one writes perfect copy. Least of all Mickey Kaus.
But I'm going off track. I could write a post like that, maniacally tearing down Kaus. I won't, though.
Why? The domestic partner made a good point, after listening to me rant and ramble. He asked, "If Mickey Kaus wasn't on Slate, would anyone even read him?" In other words, why waste your time?
Touché.
But I'm going off track. I could write a post like that, maniacally tearing down Kaus. I won't, though.
Why? The domestic partner made a good point, after listening to me rant and ramble. He asked, "If Mickey Kaus wasn't on Slate, would anyone even read him?" In other words, why waste your time?
Touché.
Friday, October 7, 2005
An Insult from Slate
Mickey Kaus displays his ignorance:
"I have a natural enmity with copy editors. My position: A good copy editor will make your copy better — but only on rare occasions will it be enough better to justify the delay and hassle, let alone the copy editor's salary. And good copy editors are hard to find — the best quickly move on to other jobs these days. Those that stay, especially in big organizations like the LAT, are too often repositories of self-justifying pedantry! Usually they just make copy duller. ... Does Carroll really think the Times would be discernibly worse if Ron Brownstein were allowed to type his articles right from his Blackberry onto the front page? Even if you could take the copy editors' salaries and hire more Brownsteins? ... You could make them all use spellcheck!"
Sometimes, I despair.
There are so many things wrong with this paragraph that I can't begin to list them all. But I think it suffices to say that Mickey Kaus has no idea what copy editors do, what they catch and fix, and why they're important.
Slate employs copy editors, I believe. I wonder if they work on Kaus's column. If not, it explains a lot. If so, I can only imagine what it's like originally.
There are so many things wrong with this paragraph that I can't begin to list them all. But I think it suffices to say that Mickey Kaus has no idea what copy editors do, what they catch and fix, and why they're important.
Slate employs copy editors, I believe. I wonder if they work on Kaus's column. If not, it explains a lot. If so, I can only imagine what it's like originally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)