From the Washington Post Plum Line: The Wall Street Journal editor’s nonchalance “suggests a lack of preparedness for what we may be facing.”
Here’s another from Greg Sargent’s Plum Line: If the headline does not convey the fact that Trump’s claim is in question or open to doubt, based on the known facts, then it is insufficiently informative.
For instance, the Bloomberg headline
“Trump seeks credit for 5,000 Sprint jobs already touted” is better than
the New York Times headline
“Trump Takes Credit for Sprint Plan to Add 5,000 Jobs in U.S.”
Start noticing headlines!
Jargon is power.
When I was a dance critic, in the ’70s and ’80s, my job was to translate jargon so that non-dancers would understand.
When I was a freelance reporter, during the same time period, I had to use jargon to convince big city editors to believe I knew what I was doing.
When I was a business writer, 1986 to 2006 plus, my job was to translate all kinds of business topics so that non-MBAs would understand.
It’s all about keeping it simple, says John Lanchester in an article in the current New Yorker, entitled Money Talks: Learning the language of finance.
Adopt the jargon of the field you want to enter. Like a patois, you are believable when — to an editor — the first thing you ask is “are you on deadline?”
Don’t accept the jargon of the field you don’t know about. If you see it, the author is lazy.
Full disclosure: Many an editor has blue penciled my own less-than-clear copy.
McPhee Shines His Flashligiht: Stephen Ornes quotes the redoubtable John Mcphee in a December 6 blog post about how science writers can fashion their opening sentence. About how in a 2010 interview in the Paris Review McPhee says the right lead shines a flashlight into a dark well etc. etc.
McPhee has been using that metaphor for long time. I quoted him on it at least 20 years ago. It’s still about the best one around.
Anna Quindlen made a speech to healthcare professionals about how doctors should treat patients and their families. Her 83-year-old father had recently died from burns over 40 percent of his body. She praised his caregivers.
As you would imagine, her words are potent. “They put a human face, a series of human faces, on my father’s care.” Her speech is online at HumanizingMedicine.org, and read it now because it will be taken off the web in December.
In her comments on medicine Quindlen talks about journalism. Newspapers used to be faceless dispensers of information, and readers “had their back fences to chew over their tragedies, their disappointments, and their dreams.” Now newspapers use social media to facilitate those discussions.
She likens the power relationships inherent in medicine with the power that journalists have. When interviewed, you have every good reason to wonder whether I will get your story right — or wrong. But doctors have power over our very lives.
And so she makes the case for empowered patients, patients and family members who are armed with knowledge, who want to be treated as individuals. “People want the press to see them . . . as a person. They want the doctors and nurses to see them as something more than files. . . We are part of a society that has suddenly discovered that it has no human face and that is terrified and repelled by that fact. ”
I learned of Quindlen’s speech from another of my favorite writers.