Editor Evolved

Attempt at Introduction

2011-04-10T01:31:00.001-04:00

This blog, closed nearly four years ago, reflects a particular time and space in journalism. Events in the intervening years have made much of what I wrote seem quaint.

To summarize: For several years in the early 2000s, it seemed as though print and online worlds could cozily coexist. The general line in newsrooms at the time was that online products would supplement -- but never replace -- the printed newspaper. Publications across the country still employed scores of copy editors to polish stories and write headlines.

There are still copy editors, of course, and there are still printed newspapers. But there are fewer of each. Few have written off print entirely, but there's a growing understanding that much journalism of the future will be experienced in an online, connected environment.

And the job of the copy editor as I understood it -- as copy editors understood it -- has morphed into something else entirely. Style mistakes can now be fixed after publication online. Headlines, likewise, can shift. Many editors were already designing pages when I wrote this blog, now many are updating websites, learning about databases and writing web-optimized headlines.

Thus, when I go through these entries, I see post after post dealing with ephemera. It's fun ephemera, to be sure, and worthwhile on its own terms. But in today's news media landscape, it seems quaint.

The blog shifted over its four years. Its original title, "Copy Massage," changed to "Editor Evolved." (I still think a blog with the title and mission of "Editor Evolved" has a place, but I'm more interested in the experience than the documentation these days.) I wrote many posts dealing with the shifts that, even then, were taking place.

But many more posts dissected style errors, called out wrongdoers and otherwise splashed around the nascent evolutionary pools of the blogosphere. Please treat them gently. They come from a different world.

You won't find every single "Copy Massage" and "Editor Evolved" post here. A handful seemed too mean, tacky or slight to retain. And as an editor, it has been difficult to resist tweaking a headline here or a phrase there. If you want to see how things went down at the time, check out archive.org.

That's enough from me. My personal website, clayfiles.com, features recent creative work by yours truly. My Facebook and Twitter accounts contain updates on my daily wanderings.

Stay focused, alert and creative -- readers deserve no less.

Conversion Attempts

2009-07-03T14:25:00.008-04:00

Please bear with me as I resurrect this blog. Editor Evolved is a bit of a time capsule, but I've decided against consigning it to the past altogether.

All five years' worth of posts will appear as I uncover them in my archives (and archive.org's caches). Links may not work. All will straighten itself out in time.

Newspaper of the Future, pt. 2

2007-06-04T22:50:00.000-04:00

I'll add a few points to the list I started yesterday. I'll start with an obvious one.

8.) It may not be on paper at all. It may be on some sort of portable device. Newspaper publishers have invested for years in flexible, e-paper displays that feel like newsprint but update like websites. None of the projects have come to fruition ... yet.

9.) Its readers may not be united by geography. They may be a community of interest or enthusiasm.

10.) It will shift and evolve rapidly, as its readers' needs shift and evolve.

Newspaper of the Future

2007-06-03T22:49:00.000-04:00

My predictions (wishes?), in list form.

1.) It will have fewer pages and be physically smaller (perhaps tabloid) in size.

2.) It will have longer articles that offer more in-depth reporting an analysis.

3.) It will be precisely targeted, either in terms of geographical area or interest.

4.) It will have a vivid voice, which will provoke reader reaction.

5.) It will be sleekly designed.

6.) It will have a web component that will complement, not duplicate its contents.

7.) It will either be free or more expensive than today's papers.

Not just Romenesko, of course

2007-05-15T21:55:00.001-04:00

I don't want to give the impression that Jim Romenesko's sins are his alone.

Other journalists are just as guilty. They write about the New York Times or the Washington Post and present the struggles they find as the struggles of "the industry."

Please. The news media contains many industries and does many things. It serves many markets. Reporters and editors and photographers and bloggers exist in cities other than New York and D.C. Their work will continue, whatever becomes of the name-brand institutions.

Is Romenesko bad for journalism?

2007-05-14T17:47:00.001-04:00

Jim Romenesko's site harms the news media.

Let me say that again, in case any of you missed it: Jim Romenesko's site harms the news media. It's not the only negative force, of course, but that doesn't excuse it.

Let me take a step back and acknowledge that I, like everyone else in journalism today, can't help but read Romenesko's media news blog. I began in the summer of 2001 and continued for years. But I want to stop.

Here's the basic reason why:

Romenesko keeps us from doing our jobs.

That's bad, bad, bad. Journalism derives its credibility from covering the news that affects everyday people. Journalism's basic function is providing accurate information and communicating it in a pithy way. Romenesko interferes with that function.

His blog focuses on individuals who work in the media. So the focus shifts from the stories we do to the people who cover the stories. Who cares about beat reporting? Let's debate the importance of Katie Couric or Bill Keller. Self involved? Check. A distraction? Check.

Romenesko also presents the national media as an entity. If its on his blog, it's news. So a plagiarizing college reporter sits beside a disgraced media executive, a reassigned columnist and some nonprofit report that.

What do these things have to do with each other? Nothing, except appearing on Romenesko. That's enough. They also divert our attention from a central point of journalism:

It's local.

If you don't work at the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or USA Today (and that covers the vast majority of active journalists, if you can believe it), your primary job is covering your particular area. Its personalities, its disputes, its very nature.

Experts in the field say local coverage is the key to news organizations' survival, but who needs an expert to tell you that? If you purchase a newspaper or visit a local website, you want to know what's happening around you.

That also means that the business side of journalism is, primarily, a local business. Some papers and sites continue to do well in that local business. But you wouldn't know that from the constant doom and gloom on Romenesko. Yes, outside forces buffet journalism. But there have always been threats to our mission -- and news folks kept doing their jobs.

Romenesko threatens that. The blog portrays a single, monolithic journalistic entity plodding aimlessly toward its own destruction. Then it provides a forum for people to complain about that plodding. Then people complain about the complainers.

What does this have to do with journalism? Nothing.

Poynter, I'm looking at you.

----------

2010 update

Ha. Oh, my. I still think some of my points here stand up, but of course Jim Romenesko's site isn't bad for journalism. (It may indeed distract folks, but so does visiting YouTube.)

From a remove of three years, I'd say that Jim was, in his way, covering an important story. The news media of the time was too self-involved. That has changed. Folks are finally buckling down and doing the work of creating a new, vibrant media landscape. And that's a good thing.

Searched, Searcher, Searching

2007-04-25T17:53:00.000-04:00

Without further ado, I'm proud to present the return of the Copy Massage - Editor Evolved search term feature. Here are the phrases and words people used to find this blog over the last month. My comments follow.

how to write a stylebook entry
good friday massege
"true massage stories"
sucker abbreviate *
run the gauntlet gantlet
tasked a verb copyeditor **
philadelphia lost my copy of my GED
new republic david sedaris entire article
efforting definition
front page quote apostrophe gripe
efforting
how can I write farewell massage
Definition of the word efforting
"In their hearts, writers think of editors" ***
editor evolved
evolvEd editor
"concord monitor" pride

* I believe that would be suc.
** This copy editor says, "No, no, no!"
*** I only wish this were the case.

Quick Jab

2007-04-12T17:54:00.000-04:00

Headline from Romenesko:

"Shafer's surprised more journalists aren't scolding Sedaris"

My reply:

That's because David Sedaris is not a journalist. Duh.

Ridiculous

2007-03-28T19:56:00.000-04:00

Normally, I am a stalwart defender of truth, accuracy and the American Way of Journalism. But this tempest in a teapot over David Sedaris strikes me as a waste of energy and sense.

To recap:

The New Republic reports, shockingly, that the humorist's essays are not all 100 percent true.

Slate's Jack Shafer, known for never having any fun, ever, accordingly scolds Sedaris.

The News and Observer (from Sedaris' native neck of the woods) pooh-poohs the entire matter.

The New Republic article's author then fired off a broadside to Romenesko.

So that's where we stand. And it's all ridiculous and stupid.

Anyone who has ever so much as read a page of David Sedaris knows he exaggerates. What's more, that exaggeration (sometimes fabrication) is one of the appealing parts of reading him. You constantly shift between believing and doubting his accounts. That queasy tension between the real and fabricated defines his method.

And, he's not a journalist. Let's repeat that. He's not a journalist. He's a humorous essayist. What's more, he's a humorous essayist who has constantly made it clear that his writing contains extremely exaggerated accounts of events.

So let this go, please. Go chase the next plaugurizing college reporter.

Kurt Eichenwald Speaks!

2007-03-09T19:57:00.000-05:00

And boy, is he unhappy. Read his lengthy letter to Romenesko here.

Right now, I'll let him speak for himself. But I do find it dispiriting when a journalist -- someone committed to open, public inquiry -- talks of suing others for libel.

More on Eichenwald

2007-03-07T19:58:00.001-05:00

In a comment below, Tom Mangan raises some good points on my post. This is what he had to say:

Clay, have you seriously asked yourself what you'd have done?

Which comes first, your " journalistic ethics" (a concept widely ridiculed as an oxymoron) or the perfectly normal human urge to protect a child from exploitation?

High ideals sound fine in theory but in reality I'm thinking I'd have done something like what Eichenwald did. He should've told his bosses and should've handed off the story and, yeah, he shouldn't have written the story w/out revealing the money issue.

But if he'd have stood aside and said he was a journalist first and the kid was just going to have to hope somebody else helps him out, he might've been an "ethical journalist" but what kind of person would he be?

Sorry, but I flat reject the notion that if you want to help people you should find another line of work. That's why most of us get into this biz.

I replied to this below, but I'll post the reply here, too. I want to make clear, for the record, that I went into journalism to help people. The issue, perhaps, is how we offer that help.

I wrote "help someone in that way." And by that, I mean a direct payment to someone you're writing about.

Most journalists, including myself, do what we do because of its public service function. I don't think that's wrong -- that's the basis of our craft.

But I do think there's a line in what we do -- the line that keeps journalists removed from the public arena as actors. And I think Eichenwald crossed it. He was doing good work as a person -- but perhaps not as a journalist.

Let's put it this way. If all he did was help the teen find a lawyer, loan him some money and otherwise help him out of the situation, that would be fine. I would applaud him. He was being a good person.

But Eichenwald then decided to write a story about it. He didn't give it to someone else on the Times to write about. He didn't tell his editors he felt too personally compromised to write about the boy. No -- he wrote the story and accepted the plaudits that went along with it.

In some ways, that was a selfish act.

This also isn't getting into some of the problems with the story itself and the associated trials and publicity around it.

I could write an entirely different post about that, but perhaps the article ran too long ago.

Folks will look at this issue in different ways. Journalism often forces us to make moral choices -- and the judgment we have to live with, ultimately, is our own.

No, No, No

2007-03-06T20:00:00.000-05:00

No, "former New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald," you do not lend a source $2,000. You do not forget to mention this to your editors. You do not do it, even if, as you tell a reporter, "we were gambling 2,000 on the possibility of saving a kid's life."

It is not our responsibility to save lives. It is our responsibility to inform people, and then allow them to make those decisions themselves. We do not pay them to do so.

That this ex-Timesman feels his loan is no big deal, that he can still defend his actions --

It makes me lose my train of thought.

But it compromises Eichenwald's reporting. It compromises his story. It compromises discussion of the very real issue (teen sex exploitation) raised by his work. If you want to help someone in that way, take social work classes and look for a new career. Really.

Story via Romenesko.

Leaving Fingerprints

2007-02-19T20:01:00.000-05:00

Editors want to leave them. They want a sign that they read that story, by God. I understand.

But resist.

Just because you can change a reporter's story doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can tweak and alter every sentence doesn't mean you should. Resist, editors of the world. You have nothing to lose but your nitpicks.

Understand, I'm not defending errors. You should ferret those out and exterminate them like ... er ... ferrets. But if you can't tell the difference between your favorite nitpick and an honest-to-God mistake, then you need some time alone.

Editors play a peculiar role in newsrooms, after all.

A huge amount of copy flows across our computer screens, yet we don't write it. We often design layouts for that copy, but we don't physically print the newspaper. We write headlines, sure, but those are then subjected to the stern glances of our peers. They often (thankfully) make us redo them.

We have great potential power. Yet, if the machinery of the newsroom flows correctly, we don't use much of it.

But we want to use it. Oh, how we want to leave something of ours on a story. So we pick something, something petty. We make all attributions "Jones said" rather than "said Jones." We decide to eliminate all semicolons. We decide no paragraph can be longer than three sentences and enforce our will ruthlessly.

Each of these nitpicks can be defended. (I'm sympathetic to all of those examples.) But after we spend our energy and time making these changes, how much better is the story? Even the most grouchy among us will admit: not very.

So hold back. Restrain yourselves. Make the changes that need to be made. Find the real mistakes. Rework the bad writing. Communicate and collaborate with reporters. Make the stories better.

Don't leave your fingerprints all over something just because you can.

For our reading pleasure

2007-01-11T20:02:00.000-05:00

Take a gander at this somewhat extreme column from Poynter.

I don't agree with it all. But it aims at the heart of what I'm trying to write about here.

Money quote:

"What we have become are journalists trying to keep things stable. We are trying to survive in the world we've known for another five, 10, 15 years. What you hear in conversations are: "I'm trying to hold out till the next buyout" or "I'm trying to make it to retirement." These are not people facing challenges bravely, but rather people in hiding, hoping to be passed over, undiscovered, until they can make their way safely out of town."

Attempt at a manifesto

2007-01-08T20:02:00.000-05:00

Part two

In my last post, I sketched the changing media landscape. Allow me to summarize.

1.) More information is available now than ever before. This is a good thing for consumers of information.

2.) This abundant and free information poses a problem for the traditional news media. This has led to upheaval.

3.) Desk editors are uniquely positioned in newsrooms to deal with this new reality. We edit a wide array of stories, summarize them in pithy ways and concern ourselves with reader response.

What does this all mean?

We, as editors, can take a leading role in leading our newspapers into the future. We spend most of our workdays online anyway. We check facts. We see what other news sources do. We browse websites.

So we shouldn't be afraid of these changes. We should embrace them and learn about them. Write a blog. Record a podcast. Socially network. Make these things work for you. Make these things work for you newspaper.

Ultimately, we must accept change in our jobs. I wrote about this in the last post as well. Most of us are no longer solely copy editors -- we're editors, with the responsibility the title implies. And we will take on more roles as newsrooms acclimate to the web.

We should welcome these roles. And we should ask for more.

Make no mistake: The future of the news media is not about offering less. It's about doing more and doing it better. Abundant folks online offer free commentary and news collection. We have to coexist with them -- and we won't do it by shutting ourselves off in the windowless rooms of the past. We have to stay open and curious. We shouldn't be afraid to try. We shouldn't be afraid to fail.

Jobs will go, yes. But jobs will also be created. Positions in a new media universe will exist. And if newspapers can't employ all the people they used to, we shouldn't take that as a signal of the world's end. We should simply keep doing what we do, whenever and wherever and however we can. Reporting. Editing. Analyzing. Afflicting the comfortable and all that jazz.

Consumers want their news. We know how to give it to them. Let's do it.

Attempt at a manifesto

2007-01-04T20:03:00.000-05:00

Part one

The news media are changing. No surprise there, at least not to anyone who has followed it in the last -- oh -- decade.

For readers, the changes have meant access to a broader array of information, opinion and entertainment than ever before. In other words, the changes have been a good thing. And don't tell me it means readers need more time to sort through websites than to go through a paper. That's poppycock. It takes awhile to find favorites, true, but once you have the addresses bookmarked, web browsing zips along.

For folks who create the news media, these changes have caused problems. Notably, the economic infrastructure that kept newspapers in the black (quite far in the black in many cases) has crumbled as ad dollars migrate to the web. The same problem, to varying degrees, has hit magazines and television. Meanwhile, news websites have made money, but not as much money as their print brethren.

The web has also made reporters of everyone. Websites, blogs, video journals, etc. have sprayed from the populace like water from a geyser. Everyone has a little printing press sitting on his or her desk, and in most cases that printing press is steaming away.

Whither the news media?

Well, jobs have gone. Newspapers have cut costs to look more economically viable. As the amount of information online has swelled, many news outlets offer less. The physical paper, in many cases, has shrunk. And newsrooms still react to the web cautiously, as though it is a threat and not the future.

So here we are. I've written six paragraphs and have yet to mention copy editing. My first job out of college was copy editing. That's what I trained to do. That's what this blog -- originally named Copy Massage -- was meant to cover. What do all of these changes have to do with our corner of the newsroom?

Like the media as a whole, copy editing is changing. Some of us may still be able to spend eight hours a day wrangling commas and debating the finer points of usage. But most of us, I expect, now do far more. Some of us design pages. Some of us post stories to the paper's website. Some of us provide first reads to late-breaking stories. Some of us write occasional stories.

In a broader sense, many copy editors have already been absorbed in the new world. Some of us read blogs. Some of us write them. Some of us post on message boards. Some of us, doubtless, film our own goofy videos and post them on Youtube.

In other words, for most of us, "copy editor" covers only a sliver of what we do and who we are. We are, instead, simply editors. We take content and assemble it for public view.

Our job in no way requires physical paper. Our job, in fact, is uniquely suited to deal with the changing media world. Editors have a range of knowledge and experience that allows us to quickly sort through content, saving the good and axing the bad. Information is -- and has always been -- our business.

(In part two, perhaps I'll reach some conclusion about what this all means.)

Blog evolves

2007-01-01T20:04:00.000-05:00

Copy Massage is dead. Long live Copy Massage.

Well, the address of the blog is still copymassage.blogspot.com. But that will change. The blog has become Editor Evolved, for reasons I hope to make clear soon.

All past posts will remain. Why not? The name has changed, but this blog has increasingly concerned itself with a wider media world. I ramble, though.

Welcome to Editor Evolve.

Status update

2006-06-09T21:24:00.000-04:00

Hi there. How long has it been anyway? (Cough.) Awhile, I know.

How have you been? Good, good. I've been doing well myself.

I've been kept busy at work, attempting to take on new challenges in the design and online worlds. That's right, design and online -- two things that have precious little to do with copy editing.

Oh, I still do that. I still do that every day. But as I've mentioned before, work at a community newspaper can sprawl across many disciplines. Some of the new areas are ones I've sought out, too, eager to try new stuff.

The point is, I suppose, that this blog has fallen by the wayside. It did lead to my current work with the online world -- blogsNH. That's a community blogging project hosted by the Concord Monitor. I'm the "blog wrangler," one of those looking after our stable of local writers.

I've hit the big time. Or not. But blogsNH (where I have a space of my own) has become my spot on the web now. Copy Massage has been supplanted -- at least for the next couple of days.

But let's not weep. After all, only three people still read this blog, and one of them is my sister. Instead, let's celebrate the opportunities that blogsNH offers. Newspapers have figured out that blogs will become a critical part of the new media multiverse. I figure I should help make that happen.

What of this space?

I won't take it down. Copy Massage will remain up, and I may drop by from time to time. Perhaps I'll delete some spammed comments or revise an old post. Perhaps I'll write a new post.
Perhaps I'll change this into an entirely different blog.

The possibilities stretch before us, infinite. But for now, drop by blogsNH.

ACES Article

2006-03-28T22:37:00.000-05:00

I have a piece in the latest issue of the American Copy Editors Society newsletter. For those who don't receive the newsletter, here are the first few paragraphs.

My copy-editing blog, Copy Massage, began with a specific purpose. I wanted to show up a friend.

Perhaps that overstates things. But a friend and fellow wordsmith did begin a blog about copy editing in the summer of 2003. He covered subjects usually found in usage books and on the tongues of curmudgeonly editors. Like vs. such as. Who vs. whom. Persuade vs. convince.

His blog entertained, but it wasn't my style. I wanted to address editing from a different, more thoughtful perspective. So in September 2003, I created Copy Massage. The blog would transcend stylebook squabbling (or so I supposed) and talk about subjects of real importance.

In the years since, I've had mixed success. The blog has drifted away from that early, pure goal. After all, how many times can you write: "Put yourself in the reader's shoes" before boring yourself to tears?

For the rest, take a look at the newsletter. (My piece continues on in much the same vein, so perhaps you're not missing much if you don't.)

More on Philly

2006-03-15T22:37:00.000-05:00

An interesting article in Editor and Publisher. The potential buyer says some smart things.

I see the whole Knight-Ridder sell-off as an opportunity for communities to experiment with alternative methods of newspaper ownership. The St. Petersburg Times, for instance, is owned by a nonprofit journalism school. I've always wondered why more didn't look at such an approach -- or at least consider an alternative to the sometimes-brutal world of public trading.

In a decade or two, it wouldn't surprise me at all if many newspapers were owned or operated by nonprofits. The stock market hasn't proved the most congenial of masters for what is, after all is said and done, more a calling than a business.

Perhaps I Blogged too Soon ...

2006-03-13T22:38:00.000-05:00

Word on the street is that McClatchy wants to sell a dozen of the Knight-Ridder papers. So the drama continues.

My thoughts go out to folks at the:

Philadelphia Inquirer
San Jose Mercury News
Philadelphia Daily News
Akron Beacon Journal
Wilkes Barre Times Leader
Aberdeen American News
Grand Forks Herald
Ft. Wayne News - Sentinel
Contra Costa Times
Monterey Herald
Duluth News Tribune
The St. Paul Pioneer Press.

I think particularly about the Philly papers. I worked a summer at the Inquirer nearly five years ago, and that city has two fine, fine newspapers. They deserve to thrive.

Knight-Ridder Sale

2006-03-12T22:39:00.000-05:00

If reports coming in this evening prove true, and McClatchy indeed plans to buy Knight-Ridder, I think a lot of people will be breathing sighs of relief. Perhaps we can start thinking about journalism itself more and the journalism business less.

Recent searches

2006-03-11T22:36:00.000-05:00

How did people come here? This is how.

copy editors in australia
use of the word regimen
aren't I+grammar
How long should I stay at my first reporting job? Poynter
my space massage icons
garbage　words
what are copy points
gauntlet gantlet
best massage ever" st. petersburg"
happy new year massege
bible massage of good friday
what is the correct name for someone who gives massages?
massage icons
difference between persuade and convince

Headline Advice

2006-02-27T22:39:00.000-05:00

You want to write headlines? Here are five tips.

1.) Avoid writing them as questions.
2.) Don't be cute just because you can.
3.) Don't engage in wordplay that makes no sense.
4.) Accurately reflect the story.
5.) If you don't have the space you need, ask for more.

Boiling those five points down to one produces this:

Don't write headlines for yourself or your pals on the desk. Write them for your readers. We don't create the newspaper to amuse ourselves.

Future of Newspapers Update

2006-02-26T22:40:00.000-05:00

I haven't seen as much hand-wringing in the past couple of weeks. Perhaps people want to watch how the Knight-Ridder business works itself out.

Interesting points have been made, though, on the difficulties of establishing "citizen journalism." Exhibit one: The Bayosphere. Analysis here. And the founder of Craigslist thinks too much has been made of it altogether.

He says: "The deal is, there's no substitute for professional-level writing and fact-checking and editing. One of the tenets of the effort I'm involved with is to drive more traffic to professional news sites. People have gotten too excited about citizen journalism, and they're not addressing the balance well."

Hmm. (That's my profound point. Hmm.)

What an Editor Does

2006-02-25T22:41:00.000-05:00

I picked up a copy of "The Years With Ross," humorist James Thurber's account of his time with New Yorker editor Harold Ross. In the introduction to this new edition, essayist Adam Gopnik offers one of the best descriptions of editing that I've read.

Editors are, he writes, "before anything else, taker-outers, lighteners of the overpacked sentence."

He also reflects on the writer-editor relationship:

"In their hearts, writers think of editors as little as society ladies think of maitre d's: one tips them heavily and listens wide-eyed to their advice on the menu, but the point is to keep that table." (And, in their hearts, all editors think of writers as maitre d's do society ladies: spoiled, demanding children -- if only, sigh, you could run a restaurant without them.)"

Not that I personally think this way.

Follow-up and Another Blog

2006-02-19T22:42:00.000-05:00

Response to the dietitian / dietician post of a few weeks back came quickly.

The word is not really a legitimately formed word, and I'm pretty sure both are correct (or incorrect, depending on how you view it). The OED lists both uses (all condescendingly). I remember reading about 'beautician' (Fowler?), and how ridiculous they made it seem. Generally, the -ician suffix is reserved for words ending in -ic (etc.) Mathematic(s)-> mathematician.Readers of this blog reveal new wells of information all the time.

I suppose I can understand usage experts' disdain, but what the heck do you call the person who's an expert on meal planning? The diet guy? The diet dude? Diet-woman the magnificent?

I mean, come on. Sometimes, inelegant uses persist because we don't have a better alternative. AP's mention suggests they haven't figured out a better way.

The reader who left that response has an interesting usage blog. You can find it here. The creator promises "some of the most boring, academic pedantry on the web." Who can resist?

Poynter on Grammar

2006-02-18T22:42:00.000-05:00

Mervin Block, "a newswriting coach" and author of "Writing Broadcast News -- Shorter, Sharper Stronger," critiques recent slips by "60 Minutes."

A couple of examples:

3) "She was big box-office, made a total of 50 movies." (April 3, 2005.)
Delete a total of. Without it, the sentence means the same, except that now it's leaner. Strunk and White tell us in their "Elements of Style": "Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words ... for the same reason a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."

5) "The Brooklyn Bridge was built in 1869. It's still one of the best-looking things on Earth." (Oct. 9, 2005.)

Work on the bridge began in 1869. It was completed in 1883. Thing is something I was taught to avoid. My teacher had a thing about it.

Block catches some poor writing, yes, but some of those quoted "mistakes" are attempts at colloquialism. I don't know if those should be put at the same level as factual errors. We should banish cliches. But we should first verify those quotes and dates.

Stuff like this makes writers hate editors. We put our own prejudices ahead of what works for the story and the basic facts it contains. I would say we don't see the forest for the trees, but I don't want to lapse into dreaded cliche.

Note from the 'Real World'

2006-02-17T22:44:00.000-05:00

The partner and I have spend most of the past week preparing for a guest. Although the guest has nothing whatsoever to do with copy editing, grammar or journalism as a whole, these preparations have taken up valuable blog-cogitation minutes.

Not to worry. Many small, annoying bits of grumbling float in my brain. I merely have to pluck them from the ether.

Spelling Point of Order

2006-02-11T22:45:00.000-05:00

You spell the word dietitian, not dietician. I admit, I did not know this off the top of my head.

From Gauntlets to Profundities

2006-02-01T22:45:00.000-05:00

The comment I referred to in my gantlet /gauntlet follow-up came from Tongue-Tied, a blogger in New York. In a post today, Tongue-Tied summarizes our discussion on the difference or lack of same. She/he winds up in an interesting place:

I’m creeping toward heresy here, so I might as well go over the edge: Clay states that it’s better to be consistent than right. But why is consistency sacrosanct? If you wrote “run the gauntlet” one week and “run the gantlet” the next week, would anyone even notice? Would there be any consequences whatsoever? (On the other hand, people would notice if you spelled it differently in the same article or issue--though if you’re using it more than once in the same article, you’re overusing it.)

A couple of points.

One: Tongue-Tied works as a magazine copy editor. I would argue that magazines, because they publish less often and are thought of as more literary than newspapers, have less to gain from across-the-board usage rules. A daily newspaper has an interest in keeping basic points of style consistent -- it's a credibility issue for readers. Folks study the newspaper to find out where we fouled up.

Two: I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but I'll dust it off here just for kicks. If you allow misuse (admittedly, of a somewhat arbitrary distinction), where do you draw the line? What usages won't we ever allow? What ones will we allow sometimes? What ones aren't that important? I would hate to see the difference between literally and figuratively lost, for example.

Okay, I feel better now. Let me argue the other side for a bit.

One: The slippery slope argument is bogus. Any copy editor makes distinctions just like that all the time. If you're attuned to the language and its flow, you can't make changes willy-nilly and expect writers or readers to respect you. You have to be both a grammar enforcer and an interested reader.

A lot of usage books will tell you to replace the word "like" with "such as" in sentences like this one. But you can kill a sentence with that extra syllable. I only recently overcame my reluctance to allow the "like" to stay. I found the colloquial voice -- in rare circumstances -- to be worth it.

Two: I started "Copy Massage" as a reaction against blogs that make too much of points like (there, I did it again) gantlet / gauntlet. You can fill a blog with such nitpicks, and you can become the next grammar guru bemoaning the falling standards of our language. Good luck.

I don't want to do that. Misuse of language does interest me; a large part of my job involves fixing mistakes, after all. But I find the wider field of editing, journalism and related issues much more attractive. That's why I named this blog "Copy Massage," as opposed to "Copy Hacking" or "Copy Perfection."

I have a great deal of sympathy for Tongue-Tied. We may not be on the same page, but we're reading from the same chapter.

The Future of Newspapers Pt. 4

2006-01-31T22:46:00.000-05:00

My editor weighs in. Kind of. The post begins in TV news territory and migrates to newsprint.

Future of Newspapers Pt. 3

2006-01-31T18:47:00.000-05:00

What I've never understood about the media deathwatch mentality is the idea that Google News, let's say, will supplant newspapers. At this point, Google News is newspapers. It compiles content.

The entire blog world feeds off the mainstream media. Few bloggers do their own reporting, and even if they do, they certainly don't produce the amount of quality content that even a mid-level or small newspaper does.

That doesn't mean bloggers shouldn't report. Of course they should. It doesn't mean Google News shouldn't hire reporters. It might makes sense. But at this point, both of these media spheres -- which are the "alive," "happening" ones, happen to be entirely dependent on the "declining," "mature" old media.

A strange contradiction, no? It would seem that each side has an interest in keeping the other going. But you wouldn't know it from the way people rant.

Future of Newspapers Pt. 2

2006-01-31T13:47:00.000-05:00

Dave Barry says they're already dead. Nice to see the optimism spreading.

Terrific Column ...

2006-01-29T22:52:00.000-05:00

... On the Poynter Web site. Read it.

In it, journalist Cristian Lupsa writes:

Journalism is increasingly an insider culture. The craft is plagued – especially in high places – with hypocrisy. We write about what our friends do and call the doings “trends,” we spend too much time enjoying the company of politicians and public figures, and we are arrogant enough to characterize this behavior as part of “doing our job.”

Much to think about in terms of the big players in the news media.

In Praise of the Semicolon

2006-01-28T22:53:00.000-05:00

I'd like to mention that I have recently begun using the semicolon more often in my writing; I find it a handy way to join thoughts that would otherwise be separate sentences. For a long time I avoided the semicolon; like many others, I regarded it as a juiced-up comma, fit mainly for use in complex series ("He is survived by his only daughter, Alexis; his three sons, Tom, Dick and Harry; and his dog, Fido).

But the semicolon can be used for so much more; think of the sentences I can join now that I couldn't before; think of the Proustian lengths these sentences might now be able to obtain, especially if I throw in a comma or two, or three, or four; and imagine the excess that could result if I added a colon toward what you would imagine to be the end: Now that, friends, that would be a fine thing.

Problems can result, of course; after depriving oneself of a punctuation mark for so long, one might be tempted to overuse it. I doubt that would happen with me and the semicolon, though; we're just getting acquainted.

The Future of Newspapers?

2006-01-26T22:54:00.000-05:00

How's that for a title, eh? Makes you think I'm going to go all crazy analytical, right? Makes you think that I'm going to drop some mad serious statistics about times to come, right?

Sorry, bub.

Nope, this entry will contain only a couple of points. I haven't conducted any rigorous research, tested this out on any focus groups, or attended any workshops. I've just given it some thought. Here and there. Now and then.

Newspapers will survive. In what form, I don't know. They certainly can't thrive as exclusively paper products. They have to concentrate on the content -- the articles, reporting and writing -- that attract readers. They should pay less attention to whatever medium conveys that message.

Newsprint won't disappear. Neither will Web sites. Learn to use them both.

We have to be prepared to learn and change. We can't expect that everything we see in the newspaper world today will survive. Some newspapers will close. Some jobs will disappear. Some positions will change. But none of this affects the need for good journalism, or the qualities that make good journalism what it is.

The more we fixate on the transitory business shake-ups, the less we're able to look to the long term. So learn what a blog is. Learn how to use Web publication software. Learn why people use the Web for news.

And keep your head. Media folk love to panic. But to preserve what makes newspapers good and lasting, they can't panic. They have to focus. They have to have fun. They have to not take themselves so seriously.

Things will change. But when have they not changed? Enjoy it.

Gauntlet / Gantlet Pt. 2

2006-01-22T22:55:00.000-05:00

More on the Jan. 16th post. An alert reader posted in the comments section:

The more you look into this, the more complicated it gets. M-W's Dictionary of English Usage gives a tangled history of the words in which "run the gantlet" appears to be older than "run the gauntlet," and they say the notion that "gantlet" is more correct is "mistaken," and at any rate the words were never etymologically distinct. They also note that "British dictionaries never recognized the distinction, and "gantlet" has long since dropped out of use as a spelling variant in British English." What to do? Go with what people say or with what AP, et al., decree with very little solid justification? An excruciating dilemma!

Many style quibbles reach this point. We follow these rules not because of sound historical evidence, but because an editor somewhere (in this case, Norm Goldstein of the Associated Press) decided it was the best thing to do. He probably inherited it from someone else, who learned it in a high school classroom at the turn of the century.

Style doesn't necessarily have to be logical, or even right, to be style. It merely has to be consistent. Yes, gantlet and gauntlet have confusing histories. Yes, people may use them interchangeably. But the newspaper copy editor's bible, the AP Stylebook, has made its determination.

You make the call.

Great theater / re

2006-01-17T22:56:00.000-05:00

The U.S. spelling of the word is theater. It follows our practice of simplifying the British spelling of certain words.

Colour became color.

Manoeuvre became manueuver

Centre became center.

And (you see where I'm going with this, I'm sure) theatre became theater. Whever we write about a place where people put on plays, we're writing about a theater. The owners of the establishment may choose to name it "The World's Best Theatre," and if we use the proper name, we would of course spell it their way.

Once we leave the realm of proper names, though, and enter the inviting fields of generic land, the word becomes theater. That's how our version of the language spells it.

No one gets this right ...

2006-01-16T22:57:00.000-05:00

... Although they should. I blogged about this in November of 2003, for those of you keeping track, but I figure I can resurrect a word gripe after two years and two months.

A gantlet is, according to Webster's New World: "A former military punishment in which the offender had to run between two rows of men who struck him with clubs, etc. as he passed." In other words, an ordeal.

A gauntlet is, according to the same source, "a medieval glove." It was sometimes thrown down to challenge someone.

Therefore, you "run the gantlet" and "pick up the gauntlet."

The AP Stylebook has made its preference known in this matter. The gamut / gantlet /gauntlet entry reads quite clearly. The words mean different things, so we should use them in the appropriate circumstances.

But people don't say "run the gantlet." They say "run the gauntlet." They don't write it correctly either. Dictionaries don't make the matter any clearer; Merriam-Webster's defines gantlet as a variant of gauntlet.

Urg. It feels like the "literally" debate all over again, but with a less-popular word.

Efforting Away

2006-01-08T22:57:00.000-05:00

When last we checked, in October, Copy Massage was the third hit on Google when some poor sap searched for the abomination of a word "efforting."

I'm pleased to report that the blog is now up to No. 2.

First place? It's a column by Barbara Wallraff. She writes:

There's no point in inventing "efforting" when so many familiar verbs are available to do its job. Make an effort -- will you? -- to persuade your colleague that "I am efforting" is foolish English.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

More on the miners

2006-01-07T22:57:00.000-05:00

Reputations tarnished!

News media invalidated!

The public crushed!

Such are the over-hyped reactions to the coverage bobbled involving this tragic story. I doubt any of them stick.

Everyone I know of (myself included) simply wanted to tell the story accurately. Newspapers fell between the cracks of deadline. TV coverage could simply update its stories; Web sites could replace their front page information.

As I wrote a few days ago, newspapers simply don't do this kind of story as well as other news media. That doesn't mean we cover them terribly; it means we have to scramble to make our product competitive. We have to deal with the limitations of a media that publishes once every 24 hours.

As long as we create newspapers that reflect daily events, situations like this will crop up. The situations may be rare, yes, but they will still appear. News happens. Things change. Paradigms shift (to throw in some jargon). We will struggle to stay up to date, and we will keep working.

If newspapers transform themselves to value considered storytelling more than the daily report, situations like this may trouble us less. We would refer readers to Web sites and other media that could report instantaneously.

But would this transformed product be a newspaper? Beats me. That's a question for another time, context and blog.

Ultimately, we do our best. Nothing I've read about mine coverage makes me think people acted in incompetent or vicious ways. Everyone tried to report the news. The news turned out to be wrong.

We correct ourselves and move on.

Miner Coverage

2006-01-04T22:58:00.000-05:00

The editor of my paper writes about issues brought about by this "they're alive!" then "no, they're not" story.

He writes:

I was also reminded that while many things have changed in the news business, an essential thing about the daily newspaper remains true: It is a snapshot of a day's events. The last deadline -- the moment the press rolls, or in this case, the moment a diligent editor replates the front page to get in the latest news -- is the shutter snapping on the day. If something happens between 1 a.m. and morning to change events, so be it.

I will comment at length on this later, but this seems a story where newspapers, frankly, don't do a perfect job. When events change quickly, and when they change quickly at deadline, newspapers can fall behind. We don't have the capabilities of Web sites, television or even radio.

But we're also in the news business. That's our job. And that's our struggle in these situations.

Happy New Year!

2006-01-01T22:58:00.000-05:00

Happy 2006 from your friends at Copy Massage. In this coming year, Copy Massage will find more and better ways to insinuate its spicy blend of grammar gripes, journalism jabs and plain old crankiness into your life.

All the best.

What a Difference a Year Makes

2005-12-24T12:35:00.000-05:00

I would not write this entry, in this way, now. Having worked for the past eight months at a community newspaper -- in the best sense of those words -- I see matters differently. The holiday season gives us an opportunity to help out those in great need. In a state the size of New Hampshire, state assistance can be difficult to sort out.

With all that being said, I thought I'd quote my Christmas entry of last year. It still makes some pertinent points.

My holiday wish this year is to not hear anyone's holiday wishes. ...

I understand this season sees more charitable donations than any others. I understand that many charities depend on it to make their budgets meet. But is it really the role of a newspaper to perpetuate this ... ?

Look, big cities (and the smaller ones, too) bulge with the needy. They stand on the street corners with shopping carts full of possessions. They wait in lines for soup. They ask pedestrians for change. And they do this 365 days a year.

I see these folks every day. In December, yes, but in January and February too. They don't just magically appear for this single 31-day span. ... Yes, that little homeless boy would love toys this month. But he would also like to have a place to live, and food to eat, and other toys to play with, and a life worth living for the other 11 months of the year.

If those in the journalism profession want to spread the word about how their readers (and viewers) can help the less-fortunate, they should take a longer-term, more realistic approach. ...

My employer takes this more realistic approach, I'm pleased to say. Stories about poverty and need run in months other than December. Please, folks: In this season of giving, think about the other seasons.

I Don't Know What to Make ...

2005-12-21T12:36:00.000-05:00

... of this Slate article. I read the New York Times piece and it struck me as odd.

When a reporter becomes such a large part of a story, the dynamic of journalism fundamentally changes. The craft depends on a certain distance from the events covered -- not because we don't care, but because we want to produce a fair record.

One the other hand, does this distance require us to relinquish our humanity? Or does that formulation present reporters and editors with a false choice? How much does my concept of the craft depend on outdated notions of what journalism does?

How many rhetorical questions can I ask in a row? So far, four. But watch out for one more. As I said, I don't know what to make of this story, reporter or debate.

What would I do in a similar situation? I have no idea.

Top Keywords

2005-12-20T12:36:00.000-05:00

I've shared a lot of information with Copy Massage readers about those who, like them, visit this site. I've posted several times about the top search phrases that lead people here. Recently, I posted about readers' countries of origin.

But let's break it down further. How about the individual words that draw browsers? My trusty tracking device has kept a list since this blog's beginning. Here are the top 10, along with the number of times they've been used in searches.

massage (1915 times)
copy (326)
quotes (252)
gay (217)
efforting (187)
icons (149)
stories (130)
the (107)
blog (102)
tampa (88)

I don't know what that says, really, other than a lot of people like massages. Perhaps if I limited the vocabulary in my posts to these words alone, a lot more people would visit.

Pause Button

2005-12-17T13:20:00.000-05:00

Nothing like novel-writing to slow the progress of a blog.

I've spent the past couple of weeks resting, working and immersing myself in L. Frank Baum's Oz books.

I've also found that, for some reason, spending a lot of time actually doing journalism can make one less likely to write about it. In the last couple of months, I've spent a lot of time working on the newspaper's A1. After a hectic night, I don't necessarily rush to Copy Massage.

I go to sleep.

More will follow this month, however. The holiday season has arrived, and with it a bucketload of crankiness from yours truly.

Novel Thoughts

2005-12-16T13:19:00.000-05:00

Nothing like churning out thousands of words to remind one of the risks and joys that writers face, and also the obstacles posed to newspaper reporters every day.

In writing my book, I was constantly aware of the difficulty of actually communicating. I can turn out a lot of words with relatively little effort. Can I make them serve a purpose? That's tough. Can I do it in a limited amount of space? Even tougher.

Editors should never take writers for granted. I've hammered on this point before, and I'll hammer on it again. Writers do a marvelous thing: They create. They create, on deadline and to length.

At the same time, what an exciting experience. As I watched the words pile up, I would sometimes find myself giddy, just imagining the next plot twist, the next character interaction. Lest we forget, writers and editors choose this field because it's fun.

It can be fun, at least. Let's not forget that.

Nano Update

2005-11-30T22:59:00.000-05:00

For the final day, a few sentences.

Word count: 50,151
Last lines:

"Thus ends a poor excuse for a life," Blanchard said. He fished in Barber's coat pockets and found the key to my handcuffs. He unlocked them quickly.

"I don't know what to say," I told him.

"How about 'thank you,' for a start."

"Thanks."

Nano update

2005-11-21T12:39:00.000-05:00

Word count: 33,327
Last sentence: "It all made sense now."

Nano update

2005-11-20T12:39:00.000-05:00

Word count: 31,146
Last sentence: "Don’t look for me until you’re there."

Don't worry. Soon I will return to writing about editing and assorted issues. Only 10 days of National Novel Writing Month remain. But the siren's song of fiction compels me for now.

Nano Update

2005-11-19T12:39:00.000-05:00

Word count: 30,705
Last sentence: “It’s saving the human race from extinction.”

Nano Update

2005-11-16T13:07:00.000-05:00

Word count: 26,144
Last sentence: "But the town’s spirit could now be glimpsed only in the low buildings hugging the shoreline of the river that snaked alone its borders."

I apologize for the construction of the sentence. But such are the challenges of cranking out a novel in 30 days. I must serve the word count. I must serve the word count.

Nano update

2005-11-10T13:08:00.000-05:00

As you might be able to discern, I've written like a busy bee the last few days. If a busy bee could write, that is.

Word count: 17,141
Last sentence: "But in a situation like this, it's simply indecent."

Nano Update

2005-11-04T13:08:00.000-05:00

Word count: 8,186.
Last sentence(s): "How I could I weave these disparate strands into something coherent? I had two hours."

Nano Update

2005-11-03T13:09:00.000-05:00

Word count: 6,180
Last sentence: "I had to keep Lyle, who managed to take nice photographs when not blitzed out of his mind."

Nano Update

2005-11-02T13:09:00.000-05:00

Word count: 4,177
Last sentence(s): "Ah-hah. I understood now."

National Novel Writing Month

2005-11-01T13:10:00.000-05:00

Once again, I'm embarking the adventure National Novel Writing Month. In 30 days, I'll try to produce a 50,000-word manuscript.

I expect this to impede blogging a bit. I'll try to add copy editing tidbits here and there, but who knows how substantial or flavorful those tidbits will be.

As a backup, each day I'll post the word count from my novel (tentatively titled Pandemic) and my last sentence from the day's writing. When December rolls around, the thrills should resume.

Word count: 1,812
Last sentence: "I saw stars, then nothing."

Clay versus / v. / vs. the stylebook

2005-10-31T13:11:00.000-05:00

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.

"Efforting" News

2005-10-29T13:12:00.000-04:00

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.

Derivative Points

2005-10-28T13:14:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

Effortlessly Eventful Efforting

2005-09-30T16:08:00.000-04:00

For some reason, folks flock here to read about the word "efforting." That horrid term was in eight of the last 20 search engine queries pointing browsers here. Out of all keywords that have produced traffic for Copy Massage, "efforting" has tied (with "stories") for sixth place.

In case you missed my earlier musings on the word, see here and here.

"Efforting" has spread in the last year-and-a-half, obviously. I'm not sure why, although I have my suspicions. I doubt newspaper writers have taken to it with gusto, because grumps like me would stop them in their tracks. Thank goodness. That points us toward our friends in the broadcast media.

Although I watched little televised hurricane coverage, I expect that people were "efforting" to improve conditions in areas hit by Katrina and Rita. I expect anchors were "efforting" to get in touch with correspondents. In times of stress, people speaking off the cuff can propagate unwieldy formations. (Note this "the language is going to hell" article from the Hingham Journal.)

Viewers, unfamiliar with the word, typed it into their search engines and ended up here. Indeed, if you type "efforting" into Google, this site turns up as the ninth result. Hi there.

Don't use "efforting." Please.

The word "trying" has two syllables. It comes from a perfectly nice verb. "Efforting" has three syllables. It comes from a noun. Why would you ever use it instead of the tried-and-true"trying" ? A noun is a thing. A verb is an action. They are different.

When we write and speak, we should do so accurately, succinctly and grammatically. "Efforting" is none of those things. Please, for the love of the language and my ears, don't use it.

Summarize This!

2005-09-25T17:07:00.000-04:00

Depending on his or her workplace, a copy editor can do any number of jobs. She can design pages. He can correct grammar. She can scour the wire for stories to fill inside pages. He can grapple with the intricacies of assigning gender to indefinite pronouns.

But nearly every newspaper copy editor tackles the headline, often in conjunction with a subhead or some other bit of accompanying text. Much has been written about the craft of shaping headlines. We must make them sing, we're told. We must (or must not) include clever word choices or turns of phrase. We must seduce the unsuspecting browser into reading the story.

But headlines also summarize. Few readers devote time to every story in a newspaper. That holds true, I think, for the most devoted reader or the smallest paper. As general interest publications, newspapers by definition print a vast array of material, some of limited interest. Headlines help readers navigate through these articles. They offer a pithy summation of the news, big and small.

In many cases, they will be all the reader sees.

We spend time and energy worrying about the biggest headline. We sweat and strain to produce a great banner for the A1 main bar. But because we've positioned one story as the most important, most people will at least read its first few paragraphs anyway. Despite all our work, people will race past the headline to the story.
The stories pushed to the bottom of the page or huddling inside the paper -- these are the stories for which the headline is most important. For them, the headline is it. The headline carries the weight of not only saying what has happened, but offering some detail or shading that allows the reader to understand the information in context. In other words, the headline must summarize the story's facts and spirit.

Let's pause. Let's take some time with these poor, obscure stories. Let's show them we value them as much as the big scandal splashed across A1. And let's show readers we value them enough to give them accurate, subtly shaded summaries of current events.

Recent Referrals

2005-09-25T16:07:00.000-04:00

Here at the luxurious Copy Massage offices, we're always interested in our audience. How do people come here? Why do people come here? What features keep them coming back for more grammatical fun?

Beats us. But according to the trusty tracking software, these terms have led visitors here:

massage icons
efforting
clay concord monitor
"Why Proofreading is Important !"
stories containing lefts and rights
"GED" Copy editing
Mr. Dictionary
efforting
hunter s. thompson handwriting
Inspirational thought for the day

By the way ... don't hesitate to add your comments to the site. With Copy Massage shedding its Floridian pastels and donning some New England plaid, a new(ish) era has begun. Flame away.

A Blog to Check Out ...

2005-09-24T17:06:00.000-04:00

... Would be the one by my boss, Concord Monitor editor Mike Pride. He covers journalistic issues, sure, but he also addresses current events and life in New Hampshire. He likes Bob Dylan, too.

Few blogs come from the newsroom leaders. More should. Well-kept blogs could show editors as active, caring members of their communities. They reinforce old bonds and create new ones. They could even attract new readers.

Mike's blog deserves a larger audience, so spread the word.

Grumpy as I Wanna Be

2005-09-24T16:05:00.000-04:00

I don't like "evacuee." It's a painful back-formation, a nouning of a verb. I understand that some people believe that "refugee" has negative connotations, but the word accurately describes people who have fled from their homes seeking refuge.

I'm on the losing end of this, though.

The overwhelming human toll of Katrina has made members of the news media particularly sensitive to their traditional role of defending the underdog. Thus, they were quick to change when objections surfaced. The wire services are using "evacuee" almost exclusively now.

I don't change the word to "refugee," but, as I said, I don't like it. Words only have the power we choose to give them.

Why Am I Here?

2005-09-23T16:05:00.000-04:00

Why did I do it? Why did I leave a big newspaper in a big city for a small newspaper in a small city?

It didn't have to do with the folks at the Tampa Tribune, I'll tell you that. My experience there was great, and I enjoyed working with my fellow copy editors.

I wanted a change of scenery. I wanted to live in a place that had seasons. My partner and I had never planned to make the rest of our lives in Florida (we were brought there by an internship), and we both decided that New England seemed like a nice place to settle down.

Then a position came open at a well-respected community paper. I interviewed and was impressed by the paper and the dedication of the people who worked there. After some thought, the deal was done.

We left Florida toward the end of April, and I started at the Monitor a few days later.

My job has changed. In Tampa, I dealt almost exclusively with text. It had most often been read a couple of times before it crossed my computer screen. It would be read a time or two more before the page was sent off to the presses.

In Concord, I also design the pages, work with reporters as a line editor, and crop and tone photos. I've taken up book reviewing as well.

I like this. I knew it would be this way, and I welcomed the opportunity to do many more things. I spend more time at work, true. I bear more responsibility, true. I take on more stress, true. But I think it all serves to make me a more rounded journalist and copy editor.

It all serves the writing. The copy remains at the core. Without clear, sharply written stories, none of rest of the newsroom paraphernalia would function. The principles of good editing and good journalism have been brought home time and again on this more intimate scale.

Copy Massage will reflect these changes. My perspective has broadened. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Back to blog

2005-09-20T16:04:00.000-04:00

I didn’t mean for it to take this long. Honest.

But what with the moving from Florida to New Hampshire, the starting of a new job and the deluge of related issues, I was delayed. Having a life and a blog is difficult, if not impossible. I also wanted to make sure that I had clearance to keep up this persnickety forum about copy editing and journalism.

The life has calmed down. Folks at the new workplace have asked about further entries. The time has arrived.

Many entries to follow.

Where I'm Headed

2005-04-09T16:03:00.000-04:00

The truth can be revealed. Later this month I will start a new job at The Concord (N.H.) Monitor. I'm excited at the opportunity to work at a thriving community newspaper, and I look forward to living in New Hampshire.

The partner, the dog and I will drive up the week after next. It will be sad to leave the Tribune, which has been a wonderful place to work and learn. I will not, however, be sad to leave the single, continuous season that is Florida weather.

What's Going On?

2005-03-27T16:01:00.000-05:00

You may ask. No posts for a month. A suspicious silence in Clay land. Well, I can't tell you yet. But stay tuned for news.

Suspicious Minds

2005-02-25T03:45:00.000-05:00

Despite what you may have heard on TV news, a suspect does not rob a bank. A suspect does not kill a person. A suspect does not commit whatever misdeed you care to mention.

A person does. A man. A woman. A somebody.

A man robs a bank. A woman kills a person. A man and woman commit whatever misdeed you can imagine.

When police apprehend someone and accuse them of committing one of these crimes, that someone becomes a suspect. But the crimes themselves were still committed by a person, because we know that the crimes occurred.

When someone goes on trial for an obvious criminal offense, such as burglary or murder, the actual damage is seldom the issue. The house has been broken into. The person has been killed. We can take these things as facts. The court decides whether the person on trial did those things.

The applications to news stories, I hope, are obvious.

What we don't write: "The suspect killed fifty people on the subway. Police arrested Bob Dylan and said he was their prime suspect."

What we do write: "A man killed fifty people on the subway. Police arrested Bob Dylan and said he was their main suspect."

You'll notice that by saying "suspect" instead of "man" in the first example we actually implicate Mr. Dylan more than in the second version. Not that I think he would do such things.

Similar, Yet Different

2005-02-24T03:46:00.000-05:00

Let's turn to Merriam-Webster for a quick definition:

"Acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM."

And another:

"Anagram: a word or phrase made by transposing the letters of another word or phrase."

Thus, an anagram of the word "god" is "dog." "God" on its own is not an acronym.

But wait a second. If you have an organization called the "General Order of Dirigibles," then GOD indeed serves as an acronym. Isn't language fun?

OK, I'll shut up now.

Farewell ...

2005-02-21T03:47:00.000-05:00

... To Hunter S. Thompson. Whatever one can say about the gonzo journalist/essayist/hell-raiser, the world will be a profoundly less interesting place without him in it.

I Can't Stop Thinking ...

2005-02-06T03:48:00.002-05:00

... About the whole CBS / Dan Rather / dubious memos business.

I understand that I'm months behind the rest of the world on this. I thought about tackling the subject at the time, and I pondered it in the weeks that followed. But everyone else had their axes to grind and political bile to spill.

Let's look at this with fresh eyes. If you examine the documents in question, they should make you suspicious. I'm not saying they're fake. I haven't heard the definitive word one way or the other. But come on. They look much like documents produced on a popular, name-brand word processing software.

That's just the first point. These suddenly unearthed documents that appear to have President Bush in their sights just happen to look newly minted.

The second point? The signature of the guy who supposedly wrote the memos doesn't seem to match the signature on them. Sure, his handwriting might have been on the fritz that day. But what are the chances?

That's the second point.

So. You're a professional journalist. You see these two points in front of you. Let's not consider what the late man's family and friends might say about the memos' contents. Let's not bring up the inaccurate military terminology used. Just consider these two basic points.

What do you do?

If you have sense, you raise hell. You tell whoever found these documents to check them and check them again. You bring in competent document and handwriting experts who can reassure you beyond the shadow of a doubt the papers are authentic. In short, you work night and day to uncover the truth.

You do all of this because viewers (or readers, or Web surfers) deserve the truth. They also don't have reason to trust you if you don't present them with the truth.

Like it or not, these situations apply to all of us. In the seven-plus years I've been copy editing and reporting, I've handled similar problems. If you're a professional journalist, you probably have too. You come upon a story that's too good to be true. Or that seems to have someone else's words inserted without a credit. Or that relies on dubious sources. Or that just isn't ready for publication.

Not all of these instances rise to the level of the CBS memos. They don't have to.

Ask yourself, when such a story appears: Does it pass the smell test? What would a reasonable person off the street think? What does my gut, apart from any political considerations, tell me?

It should tell you to make damn sure the story is right. This holds for assigning editors, reporters, copy editors, slots, managing editors, on up the line. Check it out.

Do the right thing.

Drawn and Headquartered

2005-02-05T03:51:00.000-05:00

Why, oh why, does anyone use the word "headquartered"? A business has headquarters. They are located in a specific city. They are not headquartered there.

This is how English works: "Headquarters" is a noun. It's a place. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, it was coined in the mid-1600s. "Headquarter" is a verb twisted out of that pleasant old noun just this last century.

But you don't hear people use that active form of the word often, do you? Why? Because it sounds bad. So why use a passive form of a verb that shouldn't even be one in the first place?

I'm not being a fuddy-duddy. Honest. The verbed word sounds clunky. It doesn't save the writer any space. It brings up, at least to me, unpleasant associations with being drawn and quartered.

Just write, "The business has headquarters" in such and such, and all will be well. Trust me.

Journalism Linkage

2005-01-27T02:51:00.000-05:00

Slate on the supposed divide between bloggers and mainstream media. This encapsulates my thoughts pretty well. So far, blogs have served readers as a medium to find interesting writing and commentary. They haven't worked -- so far -- as a replacement to traditional news outlets.

A Silent Point?

2005-01-25T14:53:00.000-05:00

If, for some reason, you can't speak, you are mute.

If your argument or point is obsolete or beside the point, it is moot.

Therefore, if someone is still arguing for the election of John Kerry, their point is moot. Unless they are surprised and speechless, in which case it would also be mute.

Execrable Efforting

2005-01-25T09:54:00.000-05:00

During the summer, I noted the use of the word "efforting" on the radio. I fervently hoped it was a once-in-a lifetime experience.

No such luck.

Take a look at Tom Williams' letter to Romenesko this month. Other examples followed. I weep for humanity.

Warning! Ambiguity Ahead!

2005-01-19T02:57:00.000-05:00

I don't understand why reporters persist in using the word "some." As an adjective, it adds little. It actively muddies the waters of understanding.

Remember this equation:

Muddled Writing = Muddled Thinking.

"Some" illustrates this. No, no, don't bother digging up the exact figure. Please, don't even try to estimate a "many" or few." Just toss in a "some." That will do the trick!

Please.

Let's look at some examples.

"Wilkins, the banker, said he made some money in the stock market."

"Gov. Bloomberg closed the speech with some thoughts about the budget crisis."

Cut out the "some." That's right, throw it out. The word adds next to nothing in these situations. Try it. You'll like it.

Even when "some" appears needed, take a critical stance. Examine this sentence from the New York Times:

"That could undermine his leverage in Congress, where even some Republicans have expressed concern about major aspects of Mr. Bush's Social Security plans."

This reporter should be questioned about the meaning of "some." Have a couple of Republicans voiced their worries? Have dozens? Try to pin down what the word means.

Because, of course, once we know the quantity that "some" refers to, we don't have to use it.

Why the Caps?

2005-01-16T02:59:00.000-05:00

OK, this one shouldn't take long. Don't run the following sentence:

Store General Manager Ellis McWhirter said rabid dogs had destroyed the pet food aisle.

Why not? "General Manager" is a descriptive title. It tells us McWhirter's role in running the supermarket. He was not elected to the post. He was not chosen by a government official for the job. He's general manager Ellis McWhirter.

I've worked for newspapers on both ends of the spectrum. At one end, a former employer required all titles be lowercase -- except for those of elected officials. At the other end, my current employer has a liberal policy, allowing for "Professor" and "Principal."

In any event, we don't bestow extra capital letters on supermarket management. Sorry.

The Code Returns

2005-01-15T03:00:00.000-05:00

You've seen it before. Let's take a look again, at a further-revised version. "The Copy Editor's Code," as handed down by the deities on high to their most humble servant, C. McCuistion. Or something along those lines.

1.) I will be a reader.

It's the most important factor of all. The newspaper begins and ends with the people reading it. A copy editor stands in for the reader at a critical point in the process. We can change things if they don't make sense.

We do this job for those who pick up the paper in the morning (or log onto the Web site). We answer to them.

2.) I will strive for accuracy and clarity.

The two go together. They fight sometimes, but it makes their relationship stronger in the end. The newspaper must be as accurate as it can be. It must put that information across in clear prose.

3.) I will express my concerns.

Copy editors do their job toward the end of the production process. Their concerns, therefore, can be dismissed in the headlong rush to print. We have to be heard. Not all battles can be won, of course. Not all battles are worth fighting. But we have a job. We must do it.

Sometimes, this means asking stupid questions. Sometimes, this means seeming dull-witted. Sometimes this means acting like an asshole. We didn't go into this for the glamour. We went into this for the truth.

4.) I will respect those who entrust their work to me.

Reporters. Photographers. Designers. Graphics artists. Assigning editors. We handle their creations. We sometimes take that responsibility too lightly. We should consider the reporter's intent. We should consider the photographer's intent. We should look at the page layout and consider what the designer meant to do.

These folks all started the process. Now it's up to us to finish it with aplomb. They will be our readers as well.

5.) I will know and use my newspaper's style rules.

This precept occupies the lowest spot, I know. Perhaps we should think of the numbering system as separate from entries' importance.

Anyway. You should know the style before you use the style. Rules and guidelines are seldom absolute. They can be bent, broken or changed. But we should know when that happens and why. Style ensures consistency and readability. It differentiates a newspaper from a collection of stories thrown together. It is the voice of the paper.

Testy Copy Editors Thread of Note (But Aren't They All?)

2005-01-15T01:01:00.000-05:00

This discussion raises some interesting points. Favorite bits:

The Wolcott Gibbs quote: "Try to preserve an author's style, if he is an author and has a style."

And: "A few writers have voices. Many of them merely have problems. The ones with voices often write well enough that you will never talk to them."

Newspapers should publish interesting, pithy writing, make no mistake. But self-indulgence wears everyone out.

Uncharitable

2004-12-20T03:04:00.000-05:00

My holiday wish this year is to not hear anyone's holiday wishes.

Newspapers play into charities' game these months toward the end of the year. Column inches are filled with heart-tugging stories and photos about poor little Billy who needs a train set and oh-so-sad Emma who wants a Barbie.

I understand this season sees more charitable donations than any others. I understand that many charities depend on it to make their budgets meet. But is it really the role of a newspaper to perpetuate this dysfunctional, cynical embarrassment?

Look, big cities (and the smaller ones, too) bulge with the needy. They stand on the street corners with shopping carts full of possessions. They wait in lines for soup. They ask pedestrians for change. And they do this 365 days a year.

I see these folks every day. In December, yes, but in January and February too. They don't just magically appear for this single 31-day span. Newspapers do them a disservice by acting as though they only exist for this. Yes, that little homeless boy would love toys this month. But he would also like to have a place to live, and food to eat, and other toys to play with, and a life worth living for the other 11 months of the year.

If those in the journalism profession want to spread the word about how their readers (and viewers) can help the less-fortunate, they should take a longer-term, more realistic approach. They should stop trying to assuage their guilt and focus on true solutions. Charities need help, of course, but their game is not ours.

Election Lessons

2004-11-15T03:04:00.000-05:00

A few points spring to mind after the presidential elections of this month.

1.) Horse race coverage has sped up, but its importance dropped. I followed every step of this thing, from the primaries to the summer and into the fall. All the horse race knowledge in the world didn't affect the result. The election seems to have been decided by long-swirling forces.

2.) The echo chamber endangers online readers. We can become wrapped up in blogs and other assorted political sites that tell us exactly what we want to hear. Even an "objective" political journalist could find backing for whatever scroop he or she wanted to write. The problem? We lose a sense of who voters actually support.

3.) CBS News needs to -- oh, forget it.

4.) Let's not jump the gun afterward. Folks tried to attribute Bush's win to "values voters," but that theory evaporated within a few days. Many did vote on "values," of course, but that's not unusual. Fears about terrorism and leadership ended up pushing many toward the incumbent.

5.) The news media still has a job to do. Reporting accurately about the current administration or its challenger doesn't mean we're unpatriotic. Disseminating such information is the essence of patriotism. Political operatives would have the public believe otherwise. They're wrong.

Polite Recommendation ...

2004-10-26T03:06:00.000-04:00

... I hope you all have been keeping up with A Capital Idea. Also known as the copy editing blog that updates regularly and deals with substantive issues. Not that I'm comparing it with anything!

Nicole, you rock our world.

Margin Of Wha -- ?

2004-08-04T03:07:00.000-04:00

The Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk has a fantastic article about polls, and margins of error in particular.

Read it. It's quite important for these election-obsessed times.

Let's Get This Straight

2004-07-27T03:09:00.000-04:00

John Kerry in a protective suit is not news.

His wife telling a reporter from a right-wing pub to "shove it" touches the outward periphery of news, but just barely.

The Democratic convention is news.

That's the lesson for today.

Daily Roundup

2004-07-26T03:10:00.001-04:00

Yes, I know the Democratic convention begins today. No, I'm not going to write anything about it yet. I'm taking time to gather my thoughts.

Also, the folks at Romenesko are going nuts about the phrase: "It was as if an occult hand had ... " No, I don't understand it either, but it's supposed to be funny. I'm not linking to the Chicago Tribune story because it requires registration, and I only register for the New York Times and Washington Post (for now). Sorry.

Dirty Headline Alert

2004-07-25T03:11:00.000-04:00

Parents, you might want to shoo your kids out of the room. This is why every copy editor should have the mind of a sex-obsessed middle-schooler. No, I don't want to explain it. If you don't understand why it's horrible, you're lucky.

Newspaper Spellings

2004-07-21T03:12:00.000-04:00

In my post about headlines a few days ago, I called them "heads." This isn't the preferred newspaper spelling. The green-eyeshade folk use "heds."

Likewise, the beginning of a story isn't the "lead." It's a "lede." I've heard this was to avoid confusion between lead type and reporters' work, back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the planet.

"Paragraph"? Nope. Try "graf."

Now that I've gone to the trouble of mentioning these all, I'll also tell you that I don't like them. They're fine in a newsroom context. But in this blog I stick to readable, comprehensible names. (When I don't forget myself.)

Latest Search Engine Referrals

2004-07-21T01:13:00.000-04:00

How do people stumble across Copy Massage? By searching with terms such as these:

"use accused"
why proofreading is important
"ken jennings" jeopardy
cat massage picture
transition from reporter to copy editor
anger acronym
wichita eagle stylebook
Jeopardy "Ken Jennings" Salina Journal
ken jennings flew back to utah
"justin timberlake" + "rolling stone review"

An Unfortunate Name

2004-07-18T03:14:00.000-04:00

Slate takes on the case of Dairy Queen's new beverage. Let's all remember to keep an eye out for stuff like this.

Quotes in Headlines

2004-07-15T15:15:00.000-04:00

Let's examine a fake headline for a second. (I'll be using my newspaper's style, which accounts for the abundant capitalization.)

Martha Stewart On Sentence:
'I Will ... Never Surrender'

Do those ellipses bother you? They bother me. The copy editor's zeal to include a direct quote has thrown a barrier in front of quick and painless reading.

You do not fix this headline by just taking out the ellipses and leaving the quote marks. Please, do not fix this headline by doing this. You would alter a direct quote. This seems clear to me, but some don't see anything wrong about it.

You do fix this headline by taking out the ellipses and the quote marks, as well as changing a word or two.

Martha Stewart On Sentence:
She Will Never Surrender

You're giving up the authenticity of the quote marks. I admit that. But you gain an easier-to-read head.

A Plea To Readers

2004-07-15T05:16:00.001-04:00

Nothing shakes things up in the swanky Copy Massage offices like receiving messages from those who visit the site. Our staff rushes around the hallways in excitement, throwing confetti in the air and singing Madonna songs. We're not sure what their deal is.

The point? We would love to hear with you. It's been too long since Madonna's perky tunes echoed in the corridors and boardrooms of the grand Copy Massage towers. Comment on the posts, ask questions, send e-mail. Whatever it takes.

We'll be waiting.

Brains in Jeopardy

2004-07-12T03:17:00.000-04:00

Let's examine this lead from our friends at the Associated Press.

LOS ANGELES -- If the answer is Ken Jennings and his record $920,960 so far in "Jeopardy!" winnings, the question must be, how does he do it?

Notice anything wrong?

The lead doesn't follow the format of a true "Jeopardy" clue. The question should be something along the lines of: "Who has excited the TV world with his quiz show winnings?"

This lead does not make sense. It's stupid. It's a non sequitur. The follow-up paragraph doesn't improve matters:

A curious mind, good memory and astute buzzer technique, said Jennings, a Utah software engineer who will make an unprecedented 29th appearance on the syndicated quiz show tonight.

That's right. The story compounds the error by answering the question that should have been addressed at the start.

Did I notice this? Did I catch this monumental stupidity? Nope. An astute desk intern at my workplace saw the mistake on a page proof. Everyone agreed it was a terrific catch. Her fix:

LOS ANGELES - If the answer is Ken Jennings with $920,960 so far in winnings, the question must be, who holds the "Jeopardy!" record?

A curious mind, good memory and astute buzzer technique got him this far, said Jennings, a Utah software engineer who will make an unprecedented 29th appearance on the quiz show tonight.

Better.

You might expect that such bungling be caught and excised by major newspapers. You might expect that legions of sensible copy editors across the country made a similar rewrite. You might imagine that people had sense.

You would be wrong.

A simple Google search (the lame tool of lazy writers everywhere) shows the unchanged story appearing on newspaper Web sites aplenty. I think it's time for a little hall of shame for those who couldn't be bothered to read a wire story and consider if it made sense.

USA Today
Boston Globe
Wichita Eagle (which found the time to localize the second graf!)
Toronto Star (which changed the grammar of the first sentence, but not the problem)
Hartford Courant
Washington Post
Philadelphia Daily News
Miami Herald
Newark Star Ledger
Houston Chronicle

And on and on and on.

I don't mean to be unduly harsh. Wire copy usually slips through copy desks with the barest of reads. In many newspapers, copy editors have their hands tied with problematic local stories. Also, these stories may have been posted by web staff before editing.

But try. We need to try. We need to give wire stories thorough, meaningful looks. Or else we look more desperately out-of-touch than we already are.

Spreading the Love

2004-07-11T03:19:00.000-04:00

William Safire writes up Bill Walsh in the latest issue of The New York Times Magazine. Read it here. Nice to see one of the online pack receive recognition -- even if he had to do it by writing books.

I like to think that if Safire were about 100 years younger and 100 times less cranky, he would also have a blog about language. Perhaps I'm projecting.

My Latest Exciting Adventure ...

2004-07-06T03:20:00.000-04:00

... Into the world of Web pages can be found here.

Content-ish type material will appear there soon, I hope. But the crushing burden of this blog may complicate matters. You never know.

Essential Reading

2004-07-05T02:28:00.000-04:00

Let's assume you're a young copy editor, just starting out. What books would you need to do your job? Thanks for asking. Recommendations follow:

1.) Dictionaries

More than one, please. Multiple dictionaries give you multiple opinions, quickly. Yes, it can be more fun to ask the person sitting next to you, but sometimes she's busy. I'm biased because I own dozens of the things, but no single volume (besides the AP style book, perhaps) will help you more.

2.) Some sort of thesaurus

I prefer The Synonym Finder, but any book that can jog your mind for extra words can help. Don't use it to produce unfamiliar words. Use it to stimulate your thinking.

3.) An almanac

This makes me sound old-fashioned, but having all the information on a printed page can help you. We too often turn to the Web when a paper source could do the job more authoritatively. You don't have to get sucked into a Google trap for every single question.

4.) A few usage books

Quite a few volumes about "correct" use of the English language crowd the shelves. Most won't help you directly. They make you think about the written word critically, though, and that's what copy editing is all about.

Tasking My Brain

2004-07-01T02:28:00.000-04:00

For that matter, what's with the word "task" as a verb?

Who decided this was a good idea? I suspect it was the same guy who invented "efforting." I defy someone to use it in a way that doesn't sound incredibly lame.

"He's been tasked to find the answer."
"We're tasking on that."
"I've tasked her with an important assignment."
"I'm tasking."

I'm sure you are. And why don't you actually work at the same time? With a verb. They're these things that, before administrators took over the world, used to propel language. Back when language was used to communicate, not obfuscate.

Words like this make me want to gouge out my eyes with pica poles. And those pica poles are old and rusty, so I'm sure they'll hurt.

(Multi-tasking, I can live with. Barely.)