Newspaper Spellings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.