Dawn Colclasure's Blog

Author and poet Dawn Colclasure

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

What's to love about newspaper articles? For some of us, it's not length

This morning, I came across the article Cut This Story! by Michael Kinsley. I was logged in at Twitter at the time and shared the link, as well as comments, but I feel compelled to comment further on Mr. Kinsley's claim that newspapers are going the way of dot matrix printers only because the articles in them are too long.

As an avid reader of newspapers, and not just a journalist for one, I must disagree with this claim. Yes, I feel that in some instances, writers dump unnecessary and wordy information on their readers, yet some of that information Mr. Kinsley has cited is actually quite useful. I would like to know who a particular source is, why they are being quoted, and what relationship they have to the topic. I'm sure they were included as a source for a very good reason, some of which may require a little lengthy explanation by the writer as a means of introduction.

Additionally, one point I noted in my Twitter comments is that some writers sacrifice good writing and organization just to keep their articles short. I want to read a well-written article, and if that means a lengthy article to read, then so be it. Don't clutter your article with more quotes and less writing. I also appreciate it when the writer of a newspaper article goes in depth on the topic which they are writing about. I want the FULL story, not some 500-word summary I could find in a copy of USA Today. I want to know both sides of an issue, the details of what exactly happened, why this is newsworthy, why I should care and how this relates to us, as a society, on a human level.

As an example, I recently read a story in the (Eugene) Register-Guard of how cattlemen are finding their cattle stolen. The article began with one rancher's story of a discovery he made one day in which some of his cattle were missing, with tell-tale clues that they just didn't wander off. Someone advocating brevity in newspaper articles may claim that such a lead should be cut, or heavily snipped and pruned, because it tells us nothing about the topic at hand. I say, leave it. This is putting me into the victim's shoes. This is showing me on a personal level what the rancher is going through.

In that same newspaper, a reader once complained that a reporter's details about an infant's murder were too grisly for print, and should not have been included in the story. Well, I would like to know what exactly happened to the baby.

Why should journalists and newspaper reporters all of a sudden become gatekeepers of what they write and report, all in the name of "protecting" readers from unpleasant information -- or even more words to read?

My point is, if I'm going to take the time to read a newspaper article, I want to get the WHOLE story. I want all of the information and all of the facts. Don't leave readers hanging just for the sake of keeping an article short.

Yes, length can be an issue for some readers, but what must come first when writing a newspaper article is the ability to report on the news as in-depth as possible. Cover all your bases. Answer the 5 W's and H. Make sure readers can read "all the news that's fit to print" -- and that it is indeed all of it.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Was it stress to meet a deadline, or poor research?

In light of the recent story about a financial writer who dropped the bomb with reposting an old story as "news," I have to wonder if this was the result of her trying to rush and beat a deadline or if she was just too lazy to do a little further reading to verify her information. Regardless of what it was, United Airlines took a hit for her screw-up.

Case in point: A writer for a newsletter Income Securities Advisors Inc. caused a stir among investors when she took a story about United Airlines filing for Chapter 11 protection which ran on the South Florida Sun-Sentinel website she came across on the Internet and posted it as a current story. Problem was, the story dated back to December, 2002, which she failed to figure out herself. In other words, she screwed up big time. I guess this writer was too lazy to look into that story any further than the actual report because she took that story as gospel and passed on the news to the newsletter. And that very act made the news story get posted on Bloomberg. Five seconds later, the stocks for United Airlines plummetted.

Ouch.

And no matter how you look at it, it seems like this writer decided not to look for the source of that article. It was reprinted from the Chicago Tribune. Had she looked THAT up, it would've shown it was a 2002 story. It really irritates me when someone sees something on the Internet and thinks it's "news" or "current" without even looking into it further. If you do a little digging, maybe some scrolling, the date of a story, blog post, work posted online, etc., will be revealed in all its glory.

In the writer's defense, the date of the filing (December 9, 2002) was not revealed in the story. Okay, fine. That's no excuse for sloppy reporting.
And she must've had to search for a long time because I did the same thing she did and didn't see that story come up until after several clicks.


But guess which kind of related story came up first? That's right: The story telling the WHOLE world about her mistake. Link after link after link.

All I will say is, writers, do your homework. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Question everything and READ everything.

Here is the link to the story online:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-united-old-story-sep8,0,7800230.story

Here is the original story, courtesy of chicagotribune.com:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/chi-021209ual,0,4177704.story

For further reading on this subject:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=150236

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2008/09/sunsentinel_error_temporarily.php

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/tribune-findings-united-airlines-story/story.aspx?guid=%7BF42DE17B-72B9-46D6-AB0A-2FB2B0D278F1%7D&dist=hppr

Labels: , ,