Slope gets more slippery

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:00 pm

We had a features section story about a wrestler who calls himself The Big Show. In this, we had a box with this fellow's "opinions" on things:On Nike: ``I want a huge shoe
contract. I want a three- (or) four-million-dollar shoe contract for a Big
Show Stomp a Mudhole in Your Ass
Sneaker!''*************
Is it just me, or does this...pardon me...suck?

Hawkeye · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:30 am

We recently had a feature on some heavy metal band that was playing in town -- one of those q&a type things. He said things much worse than that, but I and another editor got rid of all the "sucks" "dicks" and other language not becoming of a "family newspaper." The writer (a stringer) was furious and said we stripped her voice from the piece. It goes back to what we were saying earlier. People of my generation (20-somethings) don't see "sucks" as offensive. But until 20-somethings are buying ads and are the top demographic buying subscriptions, it's my job to be a filter.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:19 pm

Perhaps people will feel differently once the "top demographic" dies off and we're left with no jobs?

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:51 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Nicole Stockdale:
Perhaps people will feel differently once the "top demographic" dies off and we're left with no jobs?<hr></blockquote>Is your point that newspapers should go ahead and print "sucks," "dick" and other four-letter words with the assurance that the young, hip demographic will suddenly become a steady subscription base and thereby save our jobs?I have my doubts about that particular strategy.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:24 pm

To tell you the truth, Gary, I haven't exactly nailed down how I feel about this. I know that to print such language would alienate some readers. But I also know that millions of intelligent, young readers are getting their news elsewhere. I get news elsewhere, and I'm not sure I would be a faithful newspaper reader were I not so entrenched in the business. Why? I can get more thoughtful analysis elsewhere, better coverage of news that is important to me, and writing styles that I relate to and identify with.In no way do I feel as if news stories must use foul language to matter. That's preposterous. But I have no problem saying I don't identify with people who would cancel a newspaper subscription because of said language. And the newspaper employees who feel comfortable watering down all our content to keep these people happy? I don't identify with them either.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:34 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Nicole Stockdale:

I can get more thoughtful analysis elsewhere, better coverage of news that is important to me .... 
<hr></blockquote>Where?

nstockdale · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:34 pm

Slate.com

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:56 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Nicole Stockdale:
Slate.com<hr></blockquote>Slate has its moments, but it really doesn't "cover" much. It "comments" a lot. Without the Times and the Post, it would be pretty barren. I don't see anything there tonight that I haven't seen elsewhere, earlier.
It's always fun to read Hitchens rail about Mother Teresa, but there's nothing new there.
Katie Roiphe?That said, I understand that I am a dinosaur in denial of the asteroid.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:42 pm

It certainly is more commentary-laden than newspapers, but -- and I surprise myself here -- I *like* that. Even when I disagree with those comments. Dahlia Lithwick's Supreme Court dispatches are must-reads for me. And I love the "Explainer" feature, "Moneybox" and "Ballot Box."The cultural commentary is better than that of newspapers I'm used to, although big-city papers must do a better job of spotting trends rather than ushering in their demise.Slate's style -- information laced with wit -- is an interesting way to do news for people who already have a general idea of what's going on in the world.Of course, that assumes I already have a general knowledge of the news. And I do get that from newspapers, NPR and -- gasp! -- CNN.com somedays.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:30 am

So, are we saying that if we include foul or "substandard" language in the newspaper, because that's the language people use, younger readers won't go to CNN, Slate, or anywhere else because the newspaper news will be more comfortable to them? I don't think so. I think we have to write as if the only news source is/was us and we make it as good as it can be.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:38 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Nicole Stockdale:
It certainly is more commentary-laden than newspapers, but -- and I surprise myself here -- I *like* that. Even when I disagree with those comments.
[snip]
Of course, that assumes I already have a general knowledge of the news. And I do get that from newspapers, NPR and -- gasp! -- CNN.com somedays.<hr></blockquote>We have several dilemmas.Many people want more commentary in their news, but others -- sometimes the same ones -- object to "bias." (In other words, they want the news to fit their views.)People want writing to be more compelling -- as in narratives done well -- but many want shorter stories and object to jumps.Many people want hard-hitting investigative journalism, but that takes staffing and newshole while papers are cutting costs.And then there's the issue of needing general background before being able to make sense of commentary.General-purpose publications have these and other conflicts to resolve.First step: Make story lengths appropriate to their need. Most stories in most papers can run shorter. This would create space for stories that should be longer, including the occasional "narrative" approach, and commentary and investigative pieces not even getting written these days. Keeping most stories tighter would be a favor to readers (and copy editors) who complain that papers are boring, irrelevant and take too long to plow through.The newspaper industry has contracted to having so few publications that past, current and prospective readers aren't served as well as they expect. A few decades ago, when cities and even towns had more than one daily paper, papers were open about their political preferences -- the annual Editorial & Publisher directory included party affiliations. Papers are less biased than ever, yet by tending to be near the center politically and providing mostly pap on their editorial pages they satisfy few and bore or antagonize many. Monopolies can be a curse to their owners.If I sound old saying this, consider that my father, who subscribes to several papers and watches TV news at least twice a day, is most enthusiastic about what he reads on non-newspaper Internet sites.

pzicari · **Posted:** Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:58 pm

Wayne, you make a bunch of good points. Readers (but not copy editors) would surely be better served by shorter stories on things that don't need to be long -- it's unfortunate that the Times and LA Times copy that contains the best reporting so often comes in huge and too late to trim thoughtfully.
The thought that "objective" papers are too bland is probably on the money, but since many people seem to dismiss the ones that are on the other side as not credible, you would have to run at least two papers to be able to make much headway in the market.
Readers want wit, but sources hate it, so it requires unusual detachment in a reporter. One of my worst early experiences was weathering the fury of a Chamber of Commerce chairman who had been roasted at a Rotary meeting after a story. He was soft-spoken, thoughtful and open, and I had called him ... "gentle." I shudder to think what would have happened if I had mentioned that he was built like a fireplug.
I really do worry about what will happen when the old-timers are gone and the kids aren't interested in conventional papers. If you get your news filtered through someone's point of view all the time, you're never going to have a basis for judging what you hear, and millions of people already think amazing things!

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2003 12:14 am

Wayne:I agree with my friend and former colleague Pete that you make some good points, even though we're straying from my original premise.Story length is a huge problem. If we as copy editors can barely make it through a story without edging into Dreamland, how can "The Reader" be expected to finish it?I can see no need for almost any story in a paper to be more than 25 inches. And 20 is usually too much.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:32 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
Wayne:I agree with my friend and former colleague Pete that you make some good points, even though we're straying from my original premise.<hr></blockquote>sorry.
I think i heard Alex Trebek say "suck" on "Jeopardy" a few nights ago, and he wasn't talking about vacuum cleaners or sex. I haven't been the same since.
The slope is indeed slippery.

Testy Copy Editors

Slope gets more slippery

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links