"You know the person from whom you duck into the men's or women's room when you see them coming? They're somewhere writing a lot of journalism."
This was a comment made by Bruce D'Silva, the writing coach at the Associated Press, who came to talk at one of my classes today. Yikes! I thought. He's talking about me!
But, what he said made sense. Because if we talk like newspapers do, people would be ducking into loos all the time to avoid having to listen to our boring, stilted way of talking.
He gave a classic example: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That's a great lede, he told us. It's succinct, it reads easily and it tells the story. Then he told us something else: If journos had written the Bible, Christianity would never have caught on. Here's what this sentence, written by a journalist, would have sounded like, (this is, in essence, what he said, but I didn't write it down, so I'm adding a few of my own words): In a surprising development yesterday, sources close to God, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that he had, over a period of six days, brought into being the heavens, an expanse of sky, planets, stars and clouds, which also includes his residence, 777, God's Drive, Heavenlyville, Heaven, as well as the earth, located approximately 100 trillion miles below.
Ok, it would probably not be as bad as this (and is there an estimate of how far the earth is from the heavens?) - in fact, if it is this bad, then that journo has no business being in the business! - but you get my gist.
I have to agree with D'Silva! The way we, as journalists, are conditioned to write, is not the most readable, most interesting way we could express ourselves. In fact, we have a knack for taking the fun out of most stories. Things are getting better, but old habits die hard, and this one seems to be hanging on. We have gotten so used to writing in this stilted, confusing way, that simplicity and elegance seem almost impossible, even undesirable!
I will voluntarily throw myself at the front of the line under the big sign that says "guilty". But then, that's what I'm here for - right? - accumulating giganimous amounts of debt in the hope my writing will, at some point, undergo a huge trasnformation and get closer to the Bible writer's style of writing than the journo's!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although the journalists in the Guardian seemed to get it right...
~FMP
yeah, but they're Brits right? They know what they're doing! (I hope no potential American employer sees this!)
Jax!! So awesome to see ur comment! Thanks!
My comment about the Brits being better is a joke! I think a lot of US newspapers, or maybe I should say US writers, are embracing a simpler and easier to read style, without taking the blood out of the story. I think what makes many British papers easier to read is that they're deceptively simple, yet the stories are well crafted, the "Biblical way". If you look at the Guardian's news ledes, they're not particularly riveting, but they tell you the point of the story, and then proceed to tell it, without putting too much complicated detail and unnecessary information, which some US reporters tend to do.
And, like you said, the Indian way is more verbose and flowery, a style which is strongly discouraged in the West.
I guess, at the end of the day, it is subjective, but newspapers, to stay alive, have to pander to what the majority of their readership wants - which, in the West is simple, yet catchy, pithy writing, which is extremely hard to do, especially when you have a deadline in two hours, and in India, a more flowery, descriptive, narrative style!
I think you have to be careful how you write, but as long as you are writing in a way that your audience likes, your readership will grow, and that's what's important.
Post a Comment