|
|
REWRITING JOURNALISTS
IN THIS INFORMATION-HEAVY world, where we are often bombarded with more than we really want to know, what has happened to the role of those primary information providers - the journalists? Historically, journalists have gone out into the world and gathered facts. It was then left to editors and sub-editors to turn these facts into reports fit for publication. The great William Howard Russell of The Times of London - the first real war correspondent, is famous for his critical dispatches from the Crimean War. But he did not write reports as we understand the term today. He wrote letters filled with description and opinion to his editor - John Delane and Delane decided what The Times would publish and what he would circulate privately to favoured Members of Parliament. For years an American reporter working on a story would find out the facts and then telephone his newspaper switchboard and shout, - Gimme me the rewrite desk - a scene immortalised in many a Hollywood movie. The result of this system was the simple, active-voice, terse and to-the-point prose that dominated the newspaper scene until quite recently. It made the sub-editor king of the newsroom, a role he or she has not surrendered easily. The editor of the London Observer, revealing recently what sort of editorial job-applicant he favoured, said: “It is more what sort of person they are, whether they can write (or preferably, really enjoy sub-editing - the world is full of writers.)” Television changed everything. Why should a viewer who has learnt all the basic facts about an event from tonight’s television news bother to read those same facts in tomorrow’s newspaper? To compete, the newspaper had to offer more. Either it had to set the event in context and explain why it had happened - something television news has no time for - or it had to offer a journalist’s personal interpretation of what had occurred, presented in a gripping and an attractive manner. NEW AGE JOURNALISTS The age of the journalist as writer had arrived. Naturally, the reader wanted to know who was behind these new, complex, opinionated stories in their newspapers, so the age of the by-line quickly followed. “No by-lines in my papers,” said the legendary Australian proprietor Ezra Norton. “No bastard of a journalist is going to get famous at my expense.” But they did. Almost overnight stories with no attribution or, at best, with “by our own correspondent” gave way to names of high profile journalists, and a story without a by-line became an oddity. The new journalists needed not only a broader education, a deeper view of the world and a philosophical base from which to form their view of life, but they needed to be able to write, to appreciate the power of words. (If you doubt that such power exists, then ask why the U.S. military uses euphemisms? Soldiers do not kill people, they apply lethal force. The craft of writing is helped by talent but it can be taught just like any other craft. The important thing is to avoid pretension, signalled by big words and circumlocution. I was inspired by something that Arthur Kudner, a legendary American printer (many an old-fashioned printer had a feel for words, perhaps from seeing them, really seeing them, in metal type) wrote for his son. Big Words And Little Ones Never fear big long words. Big long words mean little things. All big things have little names, Such as life and death, peace, and war Or dawn, day, night, hope, love, home. Learn to use little words in a big way. It is hard to do, But they say what you mean.When you don’t know what you mean,Use big words That often fools little people. Some journalists deplore the day that writers took over newspapers. They nurse a nostalgia for stories that contained only facts, no analysis, no explanation, no point of view. But consider this. Few readers could take issue with facts, so the letters-to-the-editor page in the old days was small or non-existent. But any story by a journalist-writer could be contested and so the letters-to-the-editor page has expanded to the size it is today, with literally hundreds of readers anxious to have their say. Further, since a reader often has a valid point and can show that the journalist-writer has been wrong, mistaken, or unfair, a new page run by “the readers” “editor” “the paper’s ombudsman” has sprung up in which the readers’ editor explains, justifies and sometimes apologises for his journalists. This drawing of readers into the editorial process, encouraging them to feel that they have some say in the policy and creation of their newspaper, can only be good. WRITING SKILLLS If we exempt -as we must- the excesses of the tabloids, I believe that the standard of newspapers has been improved by journalists who have learnt the craft of writing. The very challenge of writing expressively, intelligently, accurately and powerfully is too demanding to waste on trivia or ephemera. This lifts the game. In the bad old days there was a tough reporter known as ‘the seamstress of Fleet Street’ because of her ability to stitch people up. Of course, she could not write. Her ability consisted of ‘professionally befriending’ vulnerable people and persuading them to damage themselves by what they said or did. Today what journalist who had painfully acquired real writing skills and learnt the power of words would want to waste their talent on such nonsense? So if you believe in the power of words, if you believe - as all good journalists should - that they can make a difference, if you believe that every story is the first draft of history, then turn to newspapers whose reporters have mastered the craft of writing and produce prose that sings.
|
