Journalism

Sure, this one has a punny title, but I couldn’t resist.  While the title may be punny (I won’t go as far as to say funny!), the topic is quite serious.  Changes in viewpoint are a pet peeve of mine and a mistake that many beginning writers can easily make without realizing it.

Before we can talk about changing viewpoint, we must first talk about the types of viewpoint out there.

• First person: This is an article or story written from one person’s point of view.  This blog is written in first person.  First person uses pronouns like “I,” “me,” “mine,” etc.  While first person is frequently used in casual writing, it is almost never used in news reporting.  In my years of writing professionally, I have only written from first person fewer than 10 times.  For articles, first person should generally only be used if the writer is an authority on the topic or if the writer is describing a situation or event the way he experienced it.
• Second person: This viewpoint is often overlooked.  Second person viewpoint addresses the reader directly.  Second person uses pronouns like “you” and “your.”  Of all the viewpoints, it can be most lenient and sometimes used in conjunction with first or third person, but that should be done sparingly.  Second person is most often found in how-to articles.  The trick with it is to avoid becoming preachy or condescending to the reader.
• Third person: This viewpoint does not involve the writer or the reader at all.  Third person pronouns include “he,” “she,” “they,” etc.  This is the most common viewpoint for news articles and is the viewpoint I use most of the time in my work for magazines, newspapers and even businesses.

Understanding the different viewpoints is crucial to use them correctly.  Most important is to NOT combine more than one viewpoint in the same article.  I don’t think I can preach consistency in writing enough.  In teaching, I tell my students that I’d rather them be consistently wrong in their article than to alternate back and forth.

Changes in viewpoint can sometimes slip into writing.  Most of the time with articles, readers really don’t care about the writer’s perspective.  First person is seldom used for that very reason.  If first person is used, then it should be used consistently, not just in a lead and forgotten about.  A writer should never interject himself in the article without a compelling reason to do so.

Second person can sometimes be used in a lead to draw a reader in and then switch to third person for the rest of the article, but this should be done sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.  One common lead is reader commonality, which starts with something like: “Don’t you just hate when X happens?”  This can work, but it isn’t the strongest type of lead and certainly shouldn’t be overdone.  Be aware that indirect commands count as second person as well (this sentence is an example).  These are sentences that address the reader directly and give a command without using the pronoun “you.”

Third person is the best viewpoint for new writers.  And it’s the most common for news articles in general.

Since changes in viewpoint can slip into articles, editing for viewpoint is important.  When I edit my work, I look at everything: grammar, punctuation, style, viewpoint, flow, etc.  Look for direct commands that slip into second person.  Look for spots where the writer has been drawn in to the story directly.  Ask other people to read the artilce and give their feedback on viewpoint — whatever it takes.   Don’t be a viewpoint switcher!

If you’ve searched for information online, then you’ve surely come across Wikipedia.  It’s user generated and regulated — meaning anyone can edit the information.  And information can be found on a broad range of topics from diseases to celebrities to televisions.  Pretty much anything.

But is it trustworthy?  That’s where the debate starts.  And the debate is important.  For example, New Scientist recently reported that 50 percent of medical doctors are using Wikipedia for information.  Its trustworthiness goes beyond whether an article we’re writing is accurate.  It affects our lives.

The theory on Wikipedia that I employ and teach my students to employ is that it’s a good starting point, but any information found on the site needs to be confirmed by a more solid source.  That’s what I hope is happening with doctor’s using Wikipedia to look up information on certain prescription drugs or conditions.

In the end, the Wikipedia debate comes down to whether the information is reliable.  Because it is user generated information it is both reliable and unreliable.  My very tech-savvy husband falls more to the reliable side of the debate.  His argument is that with so many people editing it, the information is bound to be accurate.  Someone who knows better isn’t going to let a mistake go uncorrected.  The New Scientist article even points out that no factual mistakes were found.  That’s a decent track record.  And we can surely all agree that multiple heads are better than one for catching mistakes.

However, I fall more on the unreliable side of the debate, especially for article writing.  I feel as a journalist that I have a responsibility to my readers to dig deeper than the general, user-generated information on Wikipedia.  Does that mean I never visit the site?  No.  Does that mean that I may start with the site to get an idea for what kind of sources and information to look for?  Sometimes, especially if it’s a new article topic I’m not familiar with.

All that said, I also need to point out that Wikipedia articles include references for where the information is coming from.  That means the information has to have some credibility to it.  I would say, though, instead of using the Wikipedia page as a source to go to the actual sources quoted.  First, you can confirm what is written on Wikipedia is true.  And second, you’ve just found a primary source.

Primary sources are those who were/are directly involved in the event or topic being covered.  Secondary sources are people outside of the event/topic reporting on it.  For example, I originally found the New Scientist article through another Web site.  But, to use it as a source and credit it, I went back to the actual article.  I even checked the information the article references for accuracy.  I’ve long been a fan of the Pew Internet & American Life project for data, so I made sure what New Scientist reported was actually what Pew found.  I didn’t want to quote a secondary source even in my blog.

Wikipedia seems, to me, to fall into that secondary source category.  Sure, some of those editing the posts may be directly involved, but we don’t know that.  My biggest problem with Wikipedia is that very fact — we don’t know who is behind the information.  Since it’s such a large collaboration, knowing who specifically said what is impossible anyway.  How do you quote that?  At least going to the primary sources at the bottom of each Wikipedia page gives you a more primary source to reference.

At the end of the day, credibility is most important.  Wikipedia is credible to an extent.  But, it’s a secondary source that has no place being quoted or referenced in articles.  Too many other sources exist to draw information from if you’re willing to take the time to look for them.

How do you feel about Wikipedia?

As we talked about last week, interviews are a time to do much more listening than talking.  However, you will always have sources that you connect with more than others.  Sometimes it’s commonalities.  Sometimes it’s from sources coming back at you questions about yourself.  And sometimes it just happens, usually with some of the most memorable interviews.

A couple of years ago, I was covering a small community just outside of my city for the local newspaper.  I was responsible for a column, profile and feature article each week.  One of the features I wrote was about a long-time local family whose mother was 98 at the time.  The family was so intertwined in the community that they had a road named for them.

I went in to their mother’s house to interview her and a few of her children.  I wasn’t sure what to expect, but they immediately welcomed me warmly.  They were overly nice.  In fact, after talking for probably 45 minutes, I agreed to let them perform their family initiation on me.  I definitely went outside my comfort zone and let them blindfold me to take me on an “airplane ride.”  It was a wood plank in the living room.  No danger was involved.

But, I connected with this family.  Though that page no longer exists, I have stayed in contact with the family.  They’ve invited me to their mother’s birthday parties, including her 100th this summer.  We just connected.

Another source I connected with even longer ago.  About four years ago, I was writing an article for a denomination publication about how its churches were using the Internet to reach out to members.  I found a church in Africa doing this very thing and contacted the pastor.  I still get e-mails from him today.  He checks in with me and asks about my family.  We’ve only spoken through e-mail, but it was a connection.

Sometimes connecting with your sources can mean getting outside of your comfort zone a bit and being blindfolded.  Sometimes it can just mean answering questions about yourself when asked.  Of course, keeping an interview on track is important, but many people feel more comfortable sharing information with someone when they know a bit about the person.  Don’t be afraid to connect with sources!

A big part of being a journalist is conducting interviews.  Being a copywriter involves meetings, which are similar in some respects to interviews.  For both situations, listening is vital.

A stereotypical writer is a person who is quiet and shy.  Notice I the use of the word “stereotypical” in that last sentence.  Not all writers are quiet and shy.  I acknowledge that.  Personally, I do tend to fall into that quiet category and am more of an introvert.

Regardless of your natural tendencies, it’s important to know when to listen and when to speak during an interview.  A good rule of thumb is to listen 90 percent of the time.  Here are some tips for good listening:

1. Give nonverbal and subtle verbal cues to show you’re listening.  Whether I’m on the phone or in person, I do this.  It can be a nod of the head, an “uh-huh” or just looking the person in the eye.  While taking notes during an interview is important, it’s just as important to keep conversation cues in place to encourage the person to keep talking and feel comfortable to do so.
2. Ask follow-up questions when appropriate.  While listening is vital, so is asking follow-up questions when relevant.  Think about talking with a friend who is telling you a story.  Throughout their story, you ask a question here and there to clarify things or keep the story going.  Even just questions like “What did you do?” or “What were you thinking?” can show the person you’re listening and really do care what they’re saying.
3. Don’t get overly absorbed in your notes. A good way to turn someone off is to keep your head bent into your notebook throughout the entire interview.  I like phone interviews because I can type faster to keep pace.  However, for in-person interviews or important, complex interviews, I record the interview as well so I don’t have to take as many notes and be distracted from really listening.  Never rely solely on a recorder since technical errors occur, but it’s a great backup plan.  I sometimes even make notes of the time on the recording where a good quote is that I don’t have time to write down.  However, don’t make a big fuss with the recorder.  Ask the source if it’s OK for you to record (common courtesy), then sit it down near them and leave it be.
4. Don’t be afraid of silence. I don’t want this to come across as being smarmy, but when silence happens, people want to fill it.  Sometimes I get the best information from my sources just by staying silent for a moment when they’re finished talking.  I’m not trying to trick them.  The kind of writing I do isn’t investigative anyway, but they feel the need to fill silence and sometimes expand more on a topic and I get great information.

Talking can actually sometimes be vital to a good interview as well.  It makes up that other 10 percent of the time.  Sometimes you need to make small talk with someone at the start of an interview to get them to relax.  Aside from asking your questions, other times for talking come up during interviews.  Here are some examples:

1. You have something in common with your source. Not just that you both like the color red, but something in common relating to the article.  When I was in college I did a series of articles on children of Vietnam veterans with PTSD.  They were wary to speak with me thinking I might unfairly characterize their parent.  Most times I would explain that I was in their same situation and understood where they were coming from.  Just a sentence or two was enough.  I didn’t need to recount every detail of my experiences for them to get it.
2. Your source gets off track. Chitchat can be good to put a source at ease in some situations, but the bottom line is some people just really like to talk.  You know what kind of information you need, so don’t be afraid to nicely bring the conversation back around to the topic at hand.  You can ask a question to get back on track.  Or if you caused the veer off topic, you can say something like “I got a bit distracted there.  Anyway, back to what we were talking about.”  Something like that to get them back on track.

I suppose to sum it up, the best way to know when to talk and when to listen during an interview is to remember that you are there to hear the other person’s story.  You are not there to share your own.  The focus is on the interviewee and should remain there at least 99 percent of the time.

Writing for the Internet is a bit different than writing for print.  That holds true whether you’re writing an article for an online publication or content for a company’s Web site.   And while print publications are shrinking, online usage is increasing, even in the down-turned economy.  A Pew Internet and American Life Project study found that 63 percent of adult Americans have broadband Internet now, which is up 15 percent from just a year ago.

With so many users out there, writing well online is vital to getting your content read.  A few tips can make your Internet writing more successful.

First, remember that readers have to concentrate harder to read text on a computer screen versus on a printed page. While a 2,500-word feature article might work well in a print publication, chances are most Internet readers won’t plow through it.  To add to this issue is the fact that reading on a computer screen often feels like work to most users.  After all, many people sit in front a computer all day long for work and they often don’t want to continue reading on a computer after hours.

Second, know that online readers are skimmers. You may be skimming through this post.  I know I skim online.  Using subheads, bullet points and other such devices can draw readers in to your main points.  If you have enough good points, then skimmers will take time to read the entire piece.

Third, utilize the inverted pyramid. The inverted pyramid style of writing is starting with the most important information at the beginning and working down in priority from there.  Inverted pyramids work well for Internet writing because you may only get your reader to read the first couple of paragraphs, so you want to give them enough information to draw them in.  Creative leads don’t work as well online.  People want to know exactly what they’re getting up front when they are reading online.

Fourth, keep it simple. Internet writing is not the place for extra long sentences and words.  Overall, simple sentence structure and vocabulary geared to an eighth or ninth grade level is preferred.  Think similarly to your local newspaper.  Concise writing is vital for effective online writing.

Fifth, emphasize key words, but don’t get too crazy with them. You definitely want to use key words that Internet search engines will pick up on, but you don’t want to go so crazy with them as to drive your readers crazy and interfere with your message.

Finally, include related links. If you refer to another online article in your piece or are quoting a study, then link to it.  Readers are definitely more wary of information they read online and want to be able to confirm it.  You don’t want to include a link for every other word or even every paragraph, but a few well placed links really do add to your credibility.

If I were to be completely honest about myself, I would tell you that I can stress out over the small stuff — contrary to what those books tell us to do.  I tend to be a perfectionist and not all that fond of change.  For that reason, when I decided to major in journalism all those years ago, my older brother was concerned I couldn’t handle the pressure and stress of deadlines.  In journalism classes professors would sometimes give short deadlines to simulate the real world and he had friends who had dealt with that.  He didn’t think I would do well with that.

While his concerns were definitely well founded, I discovered in college and since that I actually thrive on and love deadlines.  Sometimes they are short and stressful.  Sometimes they are longer and let me plan, but I enjoy them.  As a freelancer, deadlines keep me on task.  They give me a goal to work toward.  I know that by this certain day this project or article will be completed.

In graduate school, I had a part-time job where I was working on a huge and unending project.  I enjoyed the work, but it never had a sense of finality to it.  So, I set deadlines for myself to complete certain tasks and give me not only a goal to work toward but also a sense of accomplishment when the goal was reached.

Without deadlines these days, it’s too easy for a task to get pushed to the back-burner.  Project deadlines help me prioritize and organize my workload.  They keep me motivated and on task.  I would definitely say deadlines are bliss, even when it makes working late or working weekends; deadlines keep me going.

How do you feel about deadlines?

Direct quotes can make a mediocre article even snazzier.  They can also spice up press releases and other marketing material.  But, they have to be used properly.  And you have to pick the best quotes.

I think most writers struggle with direct quotes early on in their careers.  I did.  I know that most of my students have.  While no hard and fast rules exist concerning using direct quotes, a few guidelines can make knowing when to use them a bit easier.

First, direct quotes are great when someone says something unique.  For example, I recently wrote an article for aviation security professionals about behavioral analysis.  Former FBI profile, Gene Rugala, said this to me during the interview: “We have to be right every time.  The terrorists only have to be right once.”  That’s unique.  It’s a strong statement that stands out and makes a good point.

Second, direct quotes should be used when someone says something uniquely.    In general, you should not use direct quotes when you can say what the person said better — meaning more concise and clear.  However, sometimes sources present information in a unique manner.  Including such quotations makes for a stronger article.  Including quotations that show a person’s character or are different than would be expected for the person also fall into this category.

Third, use direct quotes when someone important says something important.  Someone important means whoever is important to the subject at hand and to the audience the piece is intended for.  In that same article on behavior analysis that I wrote for aviation security professionals, I utilized a variety of important sources.  Beacuse it was for an international magazine, the sources came from all over the world.  One source was Dr. Paul Ekman who has been researching micro-expressions for years and been highly involved with training aviation security professionals in the United States.  During the interview, he said this to me: “The most accurate tool we have is the well-trained observer.  The Israelis give us the data because, in terms of airport security, they haven’t had a problem in a long time.  We know how to train people now, and that’s what we need to do.”  I could have worked that information in as a paraphrase, but he is well-known and important in the aviation security community, so it worked better to come directly from him.

With all that said, another tip that I must include is to never use direct quotes that don’t stand out or give basic information.  Irecently wrote a series of 15 profile articles for The (Muncie) Star Press about people nominated for healthcare awards.  While each article included background information on the person, such as education, that information was always paraphrased.  Wasting word count and space on putting it into a direct quote would not be effective.  The same is true for general statements, such as “I was scared.”  If it’s not a quote that stands out to you and gets your attention, then paraphrase.  Never use direct quotes just for the sake of using them.

My number one writing tip is “know your audience.”  In fact, this is so often my sermon that I can’t believe I haven’t written about it sooner!  I preach it from the beginning of any class I teach.  I go over it with clients.  It is the key to successful writing.  Here’s why.

Before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard as is most likely these days), before beginning to research, before even developing a solid focus for a piece, you must know who will be reading it.  For example, I may have a general topic idea I find interesting.  Let’s use dog training for this scenario.  Before I get too far and figure out how I want to cover dog training, I must determine who will be reading it.  I pull out the old Writer’s Market (a listing of nearly every magazine in print) and come up with a target magazine.  For this, I’ll pick a women’s magazine geared to working mothers ages 25 to 45.   With that in mind, I can now pick a focus for the article.  This audience wouldn’t be as interested in the history of dog training.  They don’t have time for that.  They want helpful tips for how to manage their dogs behavior alongside their children.  They need quick tips that can be done over the course of a couple of nights a week for a month rather than more involved tips that take hours a day to perfect.

It’s all about knowing the audience.  If I take that same dog training idea and apply it to a magazine geared to people raising service animals, I’ll use totally different tips, different sources and a different angle completely.  It’s all about who is reading the article.

The same is true for any other written word.  If I’m putting together a press release for a client, I need to know what sort of publications the client wants to reach.  If the client is looking at traditional, daily newspapers, I will write the release in a traditional journalism style in strict Associated Press style.  If the client wants to target alternative weekly magazines, I’ll change the tone to be a bit more laidback.  You’ve got to give the people what they want.

And, because I could really go on about this for days, let me summarize a few key reasons why knowing your audience is so important:

• Today’s readers are busier than ever.  They don’t waste time reading something that doesn’t pertain to or interest them.
• Editors will only publish material that relates to their readers.  A men’s magazine doesn’t run general press releases about a new lipstick color being released.
• Advertising material or business letters are only effective if they are read.  They are only read if they are appealing and of interest to the target audience.  Otherwise, you’ve wasted time and money.
• Today’s readers are bombarded with things vying for their attention.  Knowing what they’re looking for gives your message a better chance of getting through the clutter.

Last Friday, Poynter’s Al Tompkins wrote about how cussing has increased with the downturn in the economy.  Tompkins’ article got me to thinking about cussing and its role in a variety of avenues — specifically the written word.

I suppose I should begin this post by saying that I don’t cuss either verbally or on paper.  That said, this is a discussion that has come up in every writing class I’ve taught, so I felt it was worth a post.  I’m talking nonfiction here, not fiction.

In writing for a specific newspaper or magazine, the first rule is to check the publication’s guidelines.  The vast majority of publications don’t want writers using cuss words in their text, but some are OK with them as part of a direct quote when warranted.  If you’re not sure what the publication wants, then ask.

Some publications may leave it up to you.  In which case, you have to have an idea of what you’ll do.  This hasn’t come up very often for me in the type of writing that I do, but it has come up.

For example, when editing autobiographies to go into the library of an aviation museum a few years ago, I came across cuss words from time to time.  I always edited them, usually using a cleaner alternative word such as “darn.”  I knew the library was used for education and school children were one audience.  Strong language was inappropriate.

In general, my personal philosophy is to not use quotes with foul language.  It doesn’t fit with most publications that I work for, and I just have a problem with it personally.  I don’t like hearing it or reading it, so for me it doesn’t make sense to write it.

How do you feel about cuss words in print?

For the last year or so, news reports have circulated about newspapers ceasing print publication and going completely online.  Publishers say the change is due to loss in profit — fewer subscribers, higher operating costs.  Does this trend mean all print newspapers are doomed?  I’ve heard arguments both ways.

The latest newspaper to go solely online is the Seattle Post-Intelligence.  As home to Microsoft, Seattle could arguably have a higher number of technophiles who are turning to the Internet for their news.  My husband is one such user.  He never picks up the local newspaper to read.

But is the average American city ready to go online only with their local newspapers?  I daresay no.  Another fact newspaper publishers bemoan is the age of their readership.  While Generations X and Y are hitting the Internet for news, the World War II generation isn’t as likely to log on.

In order to survive, American newspapers need to give local readers what they want most — local news.  I would estimate that 65 to 75 percent of the articles in the newspaper of the mid-sized Indiana city where I live are written by the Associated Press or other content providers.  Some AP content is fine and even a good thing, but most readers turn to the local newspaper for local news.  They get the national stories from other sources, such as television news.

Unfortunately, many local papers are falling behind on local coverage, which could be aiding in their loss of profit.  For now, I continue subscribing to my local newspaper.  I like to sit at the kitchen table with my bowl of cereal and read through the paper in the morning, but I do notice that I am reading less and less of the paper as it shrinks in content of interest.

While the economy is definitely in a major slump, the time has come for newspaper editors and publishers to pay more attention to and deliver what their local readers want before it’s too late.