When I started working for this paper, the first thing my editor told me was that I would have to put on my "Bullshit Goggles," meaning he knew better than I some of the people I would be dealing with. Lately, he's told me I have good Bullshit Goggles, so I get a gold star for that.
Lately, though, I've gone from having to wash off my goggles after every meeting to having to wash them off after every phone call, which is turning into washing them off quite a few times a day and the biggest waste of water ever.
Two of the towns I cover are filled with drama. In one town, the township council refuses to get along. Everyone has something to say about everyone else and they all fight. At meetings. It's quite irking to be sitting there quietly in my chair and listen to the council fight -- not bicker or disagree. But fight. And they're mean about it! So when I have a council member call me and tell me that another council is doing something naughty and illegal, I have to put on the Bullshit Goggles and make sure I'm seeing straight. Most of the time, it turns out to be just a load of crap that doesn't mean anything. Like that naughty illegal stuff that really isn't happening.
In the same town, the school board is having its own set of problems. The school board isn't getting enough state aid, so they're suing the state Department of Education over what they consider to be a "discriminatory" state aid formula. But their budget process this year has been absolutely inane. I'm not joking. Every time I turn around, there's another meeting on their budget. One of the guys running for school board this year called the budget process, 'Ridiculous to the point of a comedy," which I think is just completley accurate. No Bullshit Glasses for that one.
In another town that I cover, the school board wrote a letter asking a board member to resign when the board member wasn't even there. He allegedly made a racial comment to a resident in the hallway during the recess of a meeting in February and since then, people have been going crazy trying to get him off the board. Legally, all the board can do officially is censure him, which is basically a "slap on the wrist" action with no teeth to bear. So they voted 4-3 to write a letter asking him to resign. The board member hasn't even gotten the letter, but the article on it is coming out tomorrow. At least he knows the letter is coming so my article won't cause a whole lot of problems for him. But it's frustrating that people are making this big a deal out of it. Yes, racism is a huge problem that we need to deal with but guess what? IT'S HERE TO STAY. I have a sneaky suspicion that all these people saying that they don't want racists on the school board make their own racial comments.
Ever heard the "Avenue Q" song "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? I truly believe that. To all the parents saying that they don't want a racist on the school board: Racists shouldn't be raising your children. As a result, you are all unfit for parenthood and should resign from being a parent. And by saying this, I'm going on record stating that I'm not condoning racism, but I'm not naive enough to think that these parents are perfect on their ridiculous stuffed up pedistols.
Okay, I'm down off my soap box now. Seriously, this kind of thing frustrates me. I'm tired of my poor Bullshit Goggles causing the water in my office to run out. Being a journalist is so much more than having to deal with the bullshit that comes from our sources, but sometimes it doesn't seem like that's true. If print ever goes dead, it's going to be because we've been taking over by bullshit pushing us out of our offices and destroying the printing press machines.
Wonderful, eh?
At any rate, for the record, journalism isn't so bad, I'm obviously still working here, so it's not all death-consuming, but sometimes yeah, it gets pretty frustrating. If you're not up for this kind of thing, start looking for a new profession now. Run -- don't walk -- to the nearest Monster.com.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Editorial Review: Why I Hate It
Okay, so I'm not that great at posting weekly. I'm working two jobs. Give me a break.
At any rate, onto the blog topic of the week: Editorial Review.
For those who don't know, editorial review is when a reporter allows someone to read an article before it goes to print. I've been in a position where I've granted editorial review and I've also been in a position where I've denied it. If an article is not technical and a person is just worried about the way they will sound, I don't grant editorial review. If an article is very sensitive and includes a lot of technical jargon (ie, medical stuff, legal stuff) I will often allow a source to see the article before it goes to print.
But even when I grant editorial review, I really don't like to do it, and here's why: I hate being told how to do my job. I've been writing for a newspaper long enough that I know I'm not an expert, but I know I don't need non-reporters telling me what to do or how I can make my work better. I'm always up for constructive criticism (which is a lie, because come on let's be honest: no one likes to be told they could be better, even when it's true), but when a source insists that I rewrite something to its entirety...I just have a problem with that.
I'm working on a story now about a teenage girl with anorexia. She's in a residential home getting treatment for it and she's doing really, really well. It's a very emotional story, especially for her parents. I was at their home the other night for two hours talking with them about the topic. The article is growing in its length and already, it's more than 44 inches.
Side note: Newspaper articles are measure in inches. Page-length wise, that comes out to be about 4-5 pages, which is a LOT for something that's not going in a magagzin. I can't wait for my editor to tell me I have to chop it.
But anyways, the 44-inch story is going really well and I sent a draft of it to the family because I really want them to be an active part of the article. So I guess in that way, I'm setting myself up for criticism. This is something that's very sensitive, very private for them. But at the same time, I don't want them thinking that just because they suggest changes, those changes will appear in the completed article.
To be fair, never promise a source that granting editorial review means that changes will automatically be accepted. Writers, here's the truth: It's your story. Yes, you have to deal with the changes that your editors and copy editors make, but to allow a source to take control of your story is just not good journalism. It sends the message that the public has the right to manipulate the press, and that's just not the case. Most papers don't allow editorial review at all. My paper uses is extremely sparingly and my editor has told me he frowns on it.
And with good reason. I hate editorial review. It has its place in some instances, of course. There are always exceptions. In the case of this teenage girl with anorexia, I consider it an exception and I made a judgement call to include their views before the article goes to print. But generally, I will almost always deny editorial review simply because I strongly believe that writers -- especially new writers -- are often intimidated by sources and their changes.
In all honesty, this story with the anorexic girl is going very well. The family is very nice to work with and they have offered minimal comments; I think they get the point of editorial review without taking advantage of it.
At any rate, be careful with editorial review, make sure you know your paper's policy regarding editorial review, and happy writing.
At any rate, onto the blog topic of the week: Editorial Review.
For those who don't know, editorial review is when a reporter allows someone to read an article before it goes to print. I've been in a position where I've granted editorial review and I've also been in a position where I've denied it. If an article is not technical and a person is just worried about the way they will sound, I don't grant editorial review. If an article is very sensitive and includes a lot of technical jargon (ie, medical stuff, legal stuff) I will often allow a source to see the article before it goes to print.
But even when I grant editorial review, I really don't like to do it, and here's why: I hate being told how to do my job. I've been writing for a newspaper long enough that I know I'm not an expert, but I know I don't need non-reporters telling me what to do or how I can make my work better. I'm always up for constructive criticism (which is a lie, because come on let's be honest: no one likes to be told they could be better, even when it's true), but when a source insists that I rewrite something to its entirety...I just have a problem with that.
I'm working on a story now about a teenage girl with anorexia. She's in a residential home getting treatment for it and she's doing really, really well. It's a very emotional story, especially for her parents. I was at their home the other night for two hours talking with them about the topic. The article is growing in its length and already, it's more than 44 inches.
Side note: Newspaper articles are measure in inches. Page-length wise, that comes out to be about 4-5 pages, which is a LOT for something that's not going in a magagzin. I can't wait for my editor to tell me I have to chop it.
But anyways, the 44-inch story is going really well and I sent a draft of it to the family because I really want them to be an active part of the article. So I guess in that way, I'm setting myself up for criticism. This is something that's very sensitive, very private for them. But at the same time, I don't want them thinking that just because they suggest changes, those changes will appear in the completed article.
To be fair, never promise a source that granting editorial review means that changes will automatically be accepted. Writers, here's the truth: It's your story. Yes, you have to deal with the changes that your editors and copy editors make, but to allow a source to take control of your story is just not good journalism. It sends the message that the public has the right to manipulate the press, and that's just not the case. Most papers don't allow editorial review at all. My paper uses is extremely sparingly and my editor has told me he frowns on it.
And with good reason. I hate editorial review. It has its place in some instances, of course. There are always exceptions. In the case of this teenage girl with anorexia, I consider it an exception and I made a judgement call to include their views before the article goes to print. But generally, I will almost always deny editorial review simply because I strongly believe that writers -- especially new writers -- are often intimidated by sources and their changes.
In all honesty, this story with the anorexic girl is going very well. The family is very nice to work with and they have offered minimal comments; I think they get the point of editorial review without taking advantage of it.
At any rate, be careful with editorial review, make sure you know your paper's policy regarding editorial review, and happy writing.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Deadlines: Ick
I think one of the most annoying parts of being a reporter is the phone. I hate calling people as it is, but even more so, I hate waiting for people to call me back. I spend a lot of time sitting at my desk floating around the internet hoping that people call me back before deadline. A lot of times, I get right down to the wire before people decide to call me back.
Working on a Tuesday deadline when stuff happens Monday doens't help. For example, the state Department of Education recently released its state aid figures. We were told this on Tuesday, which is NOT fun when you're working on a Tuesday deadline. Because the paper was half done and my editor was on vacation, the stand-in editor elected to hold the state aid story for next week. So far, the other papers we rival with have covered the state aid story. It's the one drawback of being a weekly paper, that we can't be as timely as other papers because of our deadlines.
My paper is particular makes that frustrating because our deadline is Tuesday but the paper doens't come out until Thursday. So when things happen on Wednesday, we're still pretty much stuck.
Deadlines are a necessary evil though, and probably the most important part of journalism. If you don't make a deadline, you don't tell the news on time. Simple as that. News is fleeting in today's society. With masters of technology like the web and television, news papers have a difficult time being first in line with headlines. It's even tougher when you're pitting weekly papers like us against a daily paper like The Times.
Here's our benefit though: Because we're a weekly paper, our life is a lot calmer. Yes, we scramble to meet our deadlines, especially when we have trouble getting people to call us back. A lot of people are leary of the media, and when you look at what goes on in today's society, who can blame them? But it's calmer because our stories are often calmer. We have time to dig into personal, local stories and tell the homey stories that daily papers often don't bother with. We're able to give voice to the local people that might be overlooked by the daily papers and by television news casts.
Deadlines aren't fun (unless you love to work under pressure), but they are necessary. Without them, chaos in the newsroom ensues. And folks, chaos is a lot less fun than deadlines.
Working on a Tuesday deadline when stuff happens Monday doens't help. For example, the state Department of Education recently released its state aid figures. We were told this on Tuesday, which is NOT fun when you're working on a Tuesday deadline. Because the paper was half done and my editor was on vacation, the stand-in editor elected to hold the state aid story for next week. So far, the other papers we rival with have covered the state aid story. It's the one drawback of being a weekly paper, that we can't be as timely as other papers because of our deadlines.
My paper is particular makes that frustrating because our deadline is Tuesday but the paper doens't come out until Thursday. So when things happen on Wednesday, we're still pretty much stuck.
Deadlines are a necessary evil though, and probably the most important part of journalism. If you don't make a deadline, you don't tell the news on time. Simple as that. News is fleeting in today's society. With masters of technology like the web and television, news papers have a difficult time being first in line with headlines. It's even tougher when you're pitting weekly papers like us against a daily paper like The Times.
Here's our benefit though: Because we're a weekly paper, our life is a lot calmer. Yes, we scramble to meet our deadlines, especially when we have trouble getting people to call us back. A lot of people are leary of the media, and when you look at what goes on in today's society, who can blame them? But it's calmer because our stories are often calmer. We have time to dig into personal, local stories and tell the homey stories that daily papers often don't bother with. We're able to give voice to the local people that might be overlooked by the daily papers and by television news casts.
Deadlines aren't fun (unless you love to work under pressure), but they are necessary. Without them, chaos in the newsroom ensues. And folks, chaos is a lot less fun than deadlines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)