Out With the Old

Of all years, 2003 wasn't the best for journalism. Remember that Blair fellow, the re-emergence of that Glass guy and too many plagiarists to list? The world continued to boil, but newspaper didn't always put the bubbling in context. The war in Iraq brought both decent work and some too-credulous reports.

This is my wish for 2004:

A forceful, vigorous news media. We need it now more than ever. Our country has undergone radical changes in the past two years. The challenge for journalists of all stripes has seldom been greater.

Some have risen to the challenge. Others have not -- or do not acknowledge the reshaping of our national landscape. Perhaps the preoccupations of the news business itself have obscured the national picture.

Reporters must ask tough questions. Newspapers must be willing to publish the answers and live with the consequences. Newspapers cannot sit by and watch the changes. They must interact with them.

But what about copy editors? What role does the desk play in this?

When every week brings more news of national and international import, the basics become crucial. The desk's bread-and-butter -- grammar, spelling, fact-checking -- must be done right.

Copy editors maintain a newspaper's credibility. We must pursue our jobs with the same force and vigor as every other department. If our newspapers print accurate, fair and comprehensive reports, we have done our jobs. And not before then.

Year-End Searches

How readers stumbled across Copy Massage of late.

copy editing code
headlines + massage
clay massage
how to edit picture massage
massage
massage icons

These weren't the most fascinating of referrals, I know. I just figured I would clear them out before 2004 hit.

ACES Board Discussion

Enough of my rambling about Testy Copy Editors. How about some frolicking over at the American Copy Editors Society board?

The latest debate: "mic" or "mike" as an abbreviation for "microphone." (Thanks to a colleague for pointing me to this discussion.)

I like "mic" intellectually. It clearly derives from "microphone" in spelling. But we pronounce the shorter word "mike."

For clarity's sake, I would give "mike" the edge. But just barely. The larger question: Why use the abbreviation in the first place? I can think of few situations where one would absolutely require it.

Not Adding Up

Too many times, quotes are attributed with the word "added" or "adding."

I think this springs from reporters resentful about having to use "said" all the time as attribution. Thus, they pepper copy with "added"s.

An example:

"Justin Timberlake gracing the cover of Rolling Stone is outrageous," Wiggins said, adding that "his album is pretty good, though."

In this case, you don't even need the extra attribution. Folks believe, in a context like this, that it designates a comment as an aside. My belief: If we have to signpost a comment as an aside, it's not an especially effective one.

In this case:

"Justin Timberlake gracing the cover of Rolling Stone is outrageous," Wiggins said. "His album is pretty good, though."

The quote does the work. It changes the subject for you. The "adding" adds little.

One more:

"I enjoyed Christmas with my family," he said. "It was the best holiday ever."

He added, "My goldfish died and the house burned down."

"Added" drops by here to serve as a transition. The writer wants to jam two disparate quotes together. But the word works even less well here. "Added" has a jaunty air, which our speaker did not presumably share when talking about his holiday difficulties.

One option for a change: Cut the second quote and paraphrase.

"I enjoyed Christmas with my family," he said. "It was the best holiday ever."

But the day also challenged Perkins. His goldfish died, he said. To make matters worse, the house burned down.

My final objection to "added," is that it suggests the comment being added is the last one. The speaker has made his or her point and has just one more thing to toss into the mix. Few stories take this suggestion to heart. "Add" becomes a variant of "said."

Avoid this whenever possible.

I planned to end this gripe with an example of when "added" could be used appropriately. I couldn't think of one.

Proofing

This is why proofreading is important.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and the happiest of holidays to you and yours.

Remember, Copy Massage cares.

Ranting will resume soon.

Ripped From Romenesko

A day late and several bits of change short, let me point folks to articles of interest.

Editor & Publisher denigrates blogs in its year-in-review section.

The point I'm concerned with reads:

"Blah, blah, Blogs: Probably the most hyped online development in 2003 (along with growth in site registration), but will these self-important online journals actually change the way newspapers do journalism on the Web?"

Does it matter? Blogging doesn't exist as a fixed thing. It's a medium. Like any medium, it benefits a certain type of communicator -- in this case those with time and words to spare.

But blogs won't succeed or fail based on whether they revolutionize newspapers, which are another medium altogether. They will succeed or fail based on people keeping them and networks forming around them.

In other happenings, a Naples Daily News columnist apologizes for his not-at-all-racially-charged column.

Eric Deggans of the St. Petersburg Times writes about it. Key paragraph:

"For this black reader, seeing Batten's parody felt like watching an Amos and Andy routine. Forget about the tenuous connection between hip-hop slang and a failed concert; the story felt like a veiled racist joke, implying that the limited intelligence of people who talk a certain way was the real reason the concert failed."

Kudos to the newspaper, though, for keeping the column up on its Web site and linking to criticism.