As part of your case study, go to ACES discussion list:
Substance editing, ethics, and other matters
Briefly summarize one discussion going on there about ethics/taste/sensitivity/gender/diversity
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Blue Pencil 
I read the comments about how to determine if a headline goes too far. The examples given were as follows:
‘Ike ‘beats’ Tina to death’
‘He took it in the butt’
‘Man finds soulmate in cellmate’
It seems to me that most of the posts on the discussion board thought the previous headlines were definitely in bad taste and would have never run in the poster’s respective paper.
One person argued that the first headline was confusing because of the single quotes around the word beats. He goes on to say that it’s very misleading and readers might think that Tina Turner was the one that died. He also wonders if someone actually said that or if the editor was just trying to make a poetic headline. I agree. The whole headline is in bad taste and it’s almost making it seem like spousal abuse is funny. I know people who have been in abusive relationships and they definitely wouldn’t appreciate a headline like that poking fun at what was publicly made known of Ike’s repeated abuse to Tina.
The second headline is referring to Roger Clemens and the steroid scandal currently going on in baseball, and while that ran in a tabloid, the posts still viewed it as in bad taste.
Many of the posts were aware that tabloids get a little more leeway with their headlines because it’s the shock value that sells papers. I agree with that comment. Most people don’t take tabloids seriously, and if they do, then they deserve a little sensationalism in their lives.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the last headline, although I am a very accepting person. I know lots of readers would be offended by this headline based solely on religious reasons, but it seems to me that it’s just stating a fact. Unlike the ‘He took it in the butt’ headline – which is also very true – it doesn’t have such a negative connation to it. It also doesn’t make your mind slip to the gutter, as some might say.
I think all of these headlines were just an attempt to be funny, but next time, the papers should consider other points of view before they publish.
I read a discussion thread debating the following lede in The Dallas Morning News:
“Every one has had a day where 24 hours just doesn’t seem like enough time. So you rush. First work runs late. Then you realize you are out of dog food and have to run by the store before going home.
For a 42-year-old woman, that busy day was near an end when she stopped to check the mail in her apartment complex. There, a man forced her into the backseat of her car and ordered her to say nothing. Then he raped her.”
Most of the commenters bring up what I consider to be the most important criticism of this lede — using a feature lede about a rape story is just plain wrong. Reporting on a rape is one of the trickiest things to do. You risk stepping over the line of what is pertinent information and what could possibly upset or endanger the victim, especially if the attacker hasn’t been caught. I’m sure the subject of this story would be extremely upset to learn that her ordeal was trivialized like this.
When the copy editor raised her concern, this is the response she got from the metro editor:
“It conveys how an ordinary day can become a major trauma and this is why we want people to be aware of serial rapist.”
While I can understand that the writer’s point was to show how rape can happen to any one at any time, I think the most basic lesson here is that a hard news story deserves a no-nonsense lede that doesn’t try to be poetic. If this was the first time the rape was reported in the paper, I think it deserved a much different lede. If the paper decided to do a follow-up story, then MAYBE the writer could have used this type of feature-y lede.
One of the other commenters brings up the fact that copy editors who work for Gannett papers are told never to change a lead like this one. Basically, the top dogs tell their editors that breaking news gets posted on the Web with a hard news lede and then the next day you print a softer lead that’s supposed to be a sort of folo.
This is just a flawed philosophy. Online readers are usually not going to read the softer version in the next day’s print edition and loyal print readers aren’t necessarily going to be checking the site for breaking news. In almost every case, they’ll read this kind of lead and just find it insensitive.
After reading the full text of the story (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021708dnmetcollinrape.3233173.html), I realize that the reporter was trying to make the story part of a “bigger picture” look at a series of recent rapes, but I think she could have written a better lede that doesn’t shift the focus away from the subject matter.
Under a post titled “Corrections that will haunt you in the afterlife,” copy editors discuss the ethics around an article that ran in early January. Nell and Wallace Crain, married for 67 years, were interviewed by the San Antonio Express-News for a story about secrets to a happy marriage. The Crains died before the article was published, and it was not mentioned in the story.
From what I can understand, after the story was published, a Crain family friend contacted the writer, J. Michael Parker, and told him Nell and Wallace had died. The ACES board participants discussed who was to blame. Some said Parker was to blame – he was fired the week after the egregious error was discovered and corrected. Some said the editors were to blame, for holding the story for four to six months.
Some questioned the copy editors, but one person wrote that sometimes the copy editors aren’t told if/how long a story has been held. There should be clues within the story, but if there are not then a copy editor can’t know to check on updates. However, one person wrote that copy editors should always check to see if elderly sources are still alive.
The blame is mainly on the reporter, who didn’t bother to get updates from the Crains and didn’t insert clues as to when the Crains were interviewed. If copy editors had been clued in to how long ago the sources were interviewed, they probably would have verified that the Crains were alive. Another possibility is Parker’s editor, the religions editor, should have asked Parker to verify that his sources were still alive. After all, apparently everyone should know to verify status of elderly sources.
This ties in with ethics, since Parker essentially let an egregious error slip through to readers. He failed to check for updates, displaying one of the Seven Deadly Copy Editing Sins – laziness. He didn’t portray the truth to the best of his knowledge. Furthermore, the religions editor held the story for months and didn’t bother to think about whether the story needed updates. Friends and family members of the Crains may have been hurt by the fact that Nell and Wallace were portrayed as alive. Some would see it as insensitive. The newspaper allowed this error to get out to the community.
http://www.copydesk.org/discussionboard/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=598
The topic I read, “Editing, by volume,” asked users what they correct most in a typical day of copy editing (concision, grammar, spelling, AP style, etc.). Two agreed on concision, and then everyone basically got off topic by talking about why Web pages have jumps and whether that helps advertisers.
Still, the original question was interesting. I agree with the first two posters. At the Alligator, I spend most of my time shortening sentences and simplifying verbs. Most writers know the basics of grammar, spelling and AP style, so all I really have to worry about is making sure the story is as clear as it can be. The challenge there is to make sure I don’t change the writer’s original meaning, but I try to be as careful as I can.
When it comes to writers and editors, two different people are rarely going to think of the exact same sentence when they try to figure out the best way to express an idea. Some sort of compromise is usually necessary, but some of the best ideas can come from collaboration. It goes back to the basics of editing. Giving more people chances to read and edit an article increase the chances that we’ll catch the errors.
I read the discussion regarding using race in suspect descriptions in crimes. The consensus was that using race when the description was incomplete was doing nothing in aiding readers and only singled out an individual group or stereotyped. If the height, weight, build and clothing of an individual were known, then that is when the inclusion of race in the information would be useful in finding a suspect at large. If the description only included the age range and height, then using race in description would not be in good taste because it does nothing in narrowing down the possibilities. The discussion also brought up the point of using race in the description when a photo was also available to readers. It is suggested to use race in addition to a photo because, as the discussion points out, photographs may not be included in all news sources and may only be available online.
The discussion I read was about whether to run photos of dead deer in the sports section alongside hunting stories. The original poster was very vocal about her anti-hunting stance and said that running these types of photos was repetitive because all dead deer look the same. Other editors joined the discussion, saying that whether one agrees with hunting, as editors, we must give the readers what they want. If readers respond positively to hunting stories with photos, then the paper is serving them and itself well by running these photos. However, one editor said his paper ran a photo that showed only the corner of one deer hoof, and readers criticized the paper for the “graphic” photo.
Basically, the summary of this discussion was stated by the editor who said, “as a professional, I have to leave those sorts of judgments out of my news judgment. I’m not paid to craft the paper according to what I think, but according to my seasoned read of how readers think.” In other words, personal feelings should be checked at the newsroom door.
I read a discussion titled “Dead animals in sports II,” which dealt with a topic very similar to Jessica’s – the use of photos of animals killed by hunters in the sports pages of our newspapers. The discussion stemmed from a New York Times article with a teaser that read: “Hunters need to push a new public image based on deeper traditions: we are stewards of the land, hunting on ground that we love, collecting food for our families.” The debate was actually focused on two issues: Should hunters appear in the pages of the sports section with the animals they’ve kiled? Are hunters traditionalists trying to feed their families, or killing enthusiasts who feed off (pun intended) the egotistical boost of murdering an animal?
There seemed to be a majority opinion to each question. With regard to running photos of dead animals in the paper alongside the hunters who killed them, the argument was in favor of not running them, but for reasons one might not expect. The reasoning behind this argument wasn’t so much that the photos are too graphic or insensitive, but that these photos are a waste of space that could be better filled with more pertinent information. The idea seemed to be that if you’ve seen one dead deer, you’ve seen them all. When it comes to the question of sportsman or traditionalist, there was a resounding argument for the former. Nearly every post cited the belief that the majority of hunters do it purely for sport, not for the survival of themselves or their families. This argument is best made by the consideration that today, hunting is referred to as a sport, not a food-gathering tactic. There were a few opinions that I found interesting and worth noting.
• “People eat meat. Animals must be killed for people who choose to eat meat. We’ve come a long way from the family farm because populations have exploded. One can eat meat and still want an animal to be killed humanely and object to factory farms and their practices and condidtions (yes, this is how it was spelled in the post).” – Deadline Dame
• “Let’s face it. Some hunters just like to shoot things.” – Jim Thomsen
• “Some papers now make customers pay for extended obituaries or wedding and engagment (again, this misspelling was in the post) photos. Maybe we should make the mighty hunters pay to put their egos in print and see how that goes.” – Deadline Dame
This next one I just thought was really funny. I hope no one finds it offensive.
• “Spotted recently on a bumpersticker: “Vegetarian: An Indian Word For ‘Bad Hunter'” – Jim Thomsen
I read the discussion regarding wire copy headlines that ran in a paper in the U.S. The discussion focused on whether the word ‘amid” meant what the headline writers believed it did. In most cases (actually almost always), the word didn’t mean even close to what writers believe it meant. The gist was that most writers believe it means “because of” or “among,” when, in fact, it doesn’t mean anything like that. After looking on Dictionary.com, I found that the word “amid” means “in the middle of” or “among” when used as a preposition (which it typically is). After that, I realized that perhaps sometimes the word doesn’t fit in a headline, but many times it certianly does mean what people believe it means.
After finding out the definition makes it actually akin to “among,” I believe those who posted on the ACES discussion may not actually know what the real defintion is. This is an issue that must be dealt with for future journalists. It seems that everyone learns to do one certain thing one way or another throughout his/her academic and professional career. While this is typically something one didn’t do so well on in school and learned vua trial-and-error, it sticks in his/her mind after learning the correct way to do it. In this case, it seems these posting professionals may have just never learned the real definition of the word. In those terms, while it doesn’t always fit in the context copy editors would like, it fits much more often than some obviously believe.
On the ACES Web site, I read the thread entitled, “When not married: “Girlfriend”? “Lover”? The thread began with Neil Holdway, the ACES treasurer, posting an article called “Perplexing matter of how to identify couples who aren’t married,” which addressed the issue of what to call someone’s significant other when the two people are not married. It was unclear if the article was referring to a homosexual relationship, but that’s what the message board discussion veered toward.
Some of the issues that were brought up include figuring out what to call someone’s significant other of the same sex. “Lover” carried negative, scandalous connotations, and one person mentioned “partner,” although others thought the word pertained more to business. Some participants of the discussion questioned how a reporter should classify a homosexual relationship in the specific case of two women living together who loved each other but did not engage in sexual activity. Do you classify a homosexual couple based on sexual activity or sexual orientation? Another person questioned if the classification was even relevant or necessary.
Kat Laskowski
http://www.copydesk.org/discussionboard/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=562
http://www.observer.com/2008/rosenthal-blasts-critics-over-dowd-column
I read a discussion that centered around The New York Times editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal’s response to criticism of a Maureen Dowd column that bore a Derry, N.H., dateline even though Dowd was in Jerusalem at the time she wrote the story. Rosenthal defended the dateline use, saying that it is common for a reporter to have traveled to a different location by the time his or her story is filed. He said, “Datelines are a bit of an anachronism. It’s a little bit of an affectation.” In response to critics who said that the paper could have clarified the confusion that arose because of the dateline by crediting the assistant who did reporting from Derry, he said that this was a “ridiculous” idea because this information is irrelevant to the reader and only takes up space that would be better devoted to the body of the column.
Participants in the online discussion of this topic had mixed reactions. Some points brought up included:
• Using a deadline that does not accurately reflect where the story was written is tantamount to lying to readers. This is the traditional journalistic approach to deadlines.
• However, most readers don’t understand this rule, thinking instead that deadlines describe the place the story happened, not where it was written. For this reason, deadlines are more confusing than revealing.
• The New York Times should have been more sensitive to issues with deadline inaccuracy, since deadline fabrication was one of Jason Blair’s wrongdoings.
• A dateline is unnecessary if it is clear from the story what the location is. One reader took issue with stories that use nonlocal deadlines and then refer to the location of the story as “here” in the lede. I agree that this is confusing to the reader, because “here” seems to refer to the city of publication, especially if the reader just skims over the dateline. It took me a while to get used to seeing this practice in wire stories.
• Dowd is a commentator, not a journalist, so her stories don’t require datelines like hard news stories do.
Beth Romanik
I read the ACES thread titled, “Headline writing: ‘Hillary’ or ‘Clinton’?”
I thought this was a very interesting topic because I’m interning as a copy editor at the Gainesville Sun, and I frequently edit election stories and find myself wanting to use “Hillary” in a headline. Almost every time I have to stop and 1. remind myself that it would be completely unfair and probably seem sexist if I were to actually do that, and 2. ask myself why I’d want to do that in the first place.
As far as the first one goes, I definitely don’t think I take Clinton any less seriously because she’s a woman. I think it’s great. However, in observing my everyday conversation, when I’m talking about the two Democratic candidates I say “Hillary and Obama.” Not “Clinton and Obama” or even “Hillary and Barack” – for some reason, the only candidate (Democratic or Republican) I want to refer to by the first name is Clinton.
Which brings me to the second question: Why?
I like ACES Treasurer Lisa Mc’s explanation: “As politicians become more like celebrities (or in some cases, are celebrities), the media treat them more like celebrities, asking stupid questions and focusing on their hair or their clothes or their favorite foods, as opposed to the issues. Plus they get followed around 24/7, so we’re much more familiar with them.”
But while I do think of a lot of the candidates as celebrities, she’s still the only one I would want to assign a first name to.
I think it’s because when someone says “Clinton,” I still think of Bill, so I say “Hillary” in my head to differentiate. Nowadays, though, “Clinton” means Hillary, and to draw distinction you say “Bill Clinton.” Interesting.
So ultimately, while I know logically it seems sexist to call Clinton and no other candidates by the first name, I feel inclined to agree with a thought posted by Jim Thomsen, the copy editor who started the thread discussion:
“So, cards on the table. Let’s say Hillary Clinton wins the November election. What’s your banner headline?
I would be VERY tempted to go with “PRESIDENT HILLARY” because I think the historic juxtaposition of the words would be unusually striking. At that point, it’s a matter that to me transcends style conventions. It’s all about impact.
But “CLINTON WINS”? To me, that’s a timid whiff. History would be made here, folks … let’s make history alongside it.”
The thread I looked up dealt with how to identify a transgender victim. In the case posted, police had identified the victim as a man, while neighbors had described the victim as a woman. This brings up an interesting situation we might be faced with as editors.
In this case, the editor decided to go with the police report and call the victim a “he,” but others on the thread thought that it might be best for those who knew the victim well to decide. Often times, neighbors and friends will better know how to identify someone and one post argued that we should respect that analysis, which I thought was a good point. Someone made the point that we often refer to celebrities by their stage names, even though they are usually not legal changes, and should therefore extend the same policy to transgender people.
Some caution must be exercised, as one poster pointed out, in using family as a source. Often times transsexuals are not very close with their families, who might give an inaccurate description of how the person identified him/herself.
Definitely an interesting issue to consider and one that must require some care.
I read the thread titled, “Would you allow the f-word in this case?”
The discussion centered around when, if ever, the use of expletives should be allowed in a story. The example starting the discussion was published with a bracketed word replacing the “f-word”:
“The doctor told me I’d never run,” she said. “So I said, ‘(Forget) you, I’ll run a marathon.’”
The woman quoted has obviously overcome great obstacles through a sense of determination that she chose to express using the word “fuck.” I do believe the quote loses something when it is replaced with “forget.”
Several of the comments suggested that rather than change a direct quote with a bracketed word, the whole quote should be paraphrased. This could be one solution, but paraphrasing would diminish the impact of the quote just as much as changing “fuck” to “forget.”
She never said “forget,” but she also said something a little more inspiring than, “She was determined to run a marathon.” When printing “fuck” is out of the question, I would stick to the brackets.
Other comments focused around several newspapers’ willingness to print Vice President Cheney’s famous cussing incident.
The Washington Post printed: ‘”Fuck yourself,” said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.’
I think it would be hard to argue that the vice president’s exact words weren’t newsworthy. This was on the senate floor, directed at a senator. Cheney is an integral part of an administration often centered around faith and piety.
I think avoiding the f-word in the Cheney story would have been foolish. The word was too important. “Fuck” was the story. I highly doubt that the headline to the marathon runner story would have read: “Woman directs obscenity at doctor.”
It’s a judgment call that should center around relevance and newsworthiness. I don’t think a blanket policy works when you’re dealing with people’s words.
I read a discussion on whether to use the name “Hillary” or “Clinton” when referring to the presidential hopeful. Most journalists agree to use a last name as a reference because first name is too informal. But the man that posted the question, Jim Thomsen, said we should distinguish between the two Clintons since both of them are mentioned in the news. Thomsen said you don’t use last names when referring to Cher, Madonna or Bono, but I disagree with this point of view because those people go by only one name, not a first and last name like Hillary Clinton.
Another point I found interesting was Thomsen saying if Hillary won the election, he would use a headline of “President Hillary” or “Mrs. Presidnet” or something of the like because the term President Clinton isn’t powerful enough. I agree with one of the comments made that by using those terms in a headline, you might as well be saying “The woman wins.” I think if you refer to Clinton by her last name, given the context of the story most people would reasonably be able to understand which person you are talking about.
Colleen Bennett
colbe6@ufl.edu
The thread I read in the ACES discussion board was “NYT story on John McCain.” I was surprised to see that most people feel the New York Times was in the wrong on this one. I say I was surprised because the New York Times is openly liberal, and many journalists are also liberals. I would assume that most would be clapping their hands at this story, which seems to be making John McCain look worse by the minute. The disagree-ers on the site say they think the insinuation of an inappropriate relationship was wrong given there are no hard facts. Most also feel like there is a deeper issue that the Times covered when they chose to take the sensational route: John McCain’s favors for lobbyists. The story focuses entirely on the issue of McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman’s alleged “inappropriate relationship” without ever offering any solid support or evidence. The story only slightly touches on the fact that McCain may have been doing favors for contributors despite maintaining a very ethical “persona.” Of course, there were not many people balking at the timing of the story since it is campaign season, after all. The bulk of the criticism seems to focus on the use of anonymous sources in implying something that has been denied by both parties. Everyone in this discussion seems to agree that the editors at the New York Times should have been a little more careful and demanded more “meat” to the story before having it published.