Editing for life

I think Professor Follis was right in saying to keep your editing out of your personal life! I find myself sometimes trying to correct things that people don't really appreciate my correcting. Really, though, it extends beyond the written word. I am a perfectionist in all ways and often try to better myself and others in whatever I can.

For example, yesterday I went to Meijer with some University Housing co-workers to buy items for a surprise baby shower we are hosting today. Our items are tax exempt and I thought the way the cashier was ringing up the items was wrong because I'd seen another cashier make the same mistake and correct it. I told her what I thought, thinking I just didn't want her to do it wrong and get in trouble. She said that she had done it the same way the day before but said my way did make sense though. Still, she didn't change the way she did it.

I then thought that perhaps I was wrong. I was at a different Meijer for one, and for two, it's possible they had changed the rules or have a relaxed procedure.

So, I guess I say all that to say editing is ever-prevalent in our lives and we have to find balance. We all have opinions but so do others. I'm really facing this now as I am planning my wedding and EVERYBODY has an idea of how it should go ... but it's MY wedding and so do I! So, I'm trying to learn how to listen to suggestions as well as not be afraid to stick to my guns!

Life is editing and editing is life. I will be editing for life. Haha.

Word.

So, in light of my recent engagement I thought about the arbitrariness of language sometimes. For example, the French word "fiance" is a part of our English vocabulary. It seems many times our lexicon borrows words and phrases from other places and we don't always realize it.

Then I began to wonder, who decides which words end up in the English language?

Well by doing a little bit of research it seems evident that the people in our society decide. On AskOxford.com, the dictionary makers say they decide what words to include in a dictionary based on how widely the word occurs. "We never omit a word because we think it’s not ‘good English’. (If a word is used only in very informal contexts, or only by specific groups of people, or if it is offensive in some way, we make this clear in the dictionary entry.)"

What's interesting is that those real words that are not good English are not necessarily permissible in academic or journalistic writings, right? Check out some of the new words listed below. Would your editor let you use those?

One word I noted: "mentee" Hm, I didn't know that wasn't previously a word. I use it all the time!

Other words I thought were amusing:

Riffage - guitar riffs, especially in rock music

Shoulder-surfing - the practice of spying on the user of a cash-dispensing machine or other electronic device in order to obtain their personal identification number, password, etc.

Twonk - a stupid or foolish person

Oh, and last but not least:

Crunk - n. a type of hip-hop or rap music characterized by repeated shouted catchphrases and elements typical of electronic dance music, such as prominent bass.

adj. US, chiefly black slang (of a person) very excited or full of energy.

– origin 1990s: perh. an alt. past part. of crank1 or a blend of crazy and drunk.

Wow, I remember watching a movie on "crunk" dancing my freshman year of college, but I never thought this slang word would end up in the dictionary.

Apparently, if I create a word that catches on by the majority of society, that makes it a word! Is that okely dokely? (OK) Ha, and what's funny is that I just did the spell check on this blog and all those new words are, well, not words yet. Oh well, I guess a positive is that the inclusion of these words represent what democracy is all about: language by the people, for the people. Word.

Shortchanged speech

I have a real problem when it comes to shortening things. When I was a reporter at the Daily Illini my stories would always go over the space allowed, and I could always make a case for it. When it comes to the text of a story or essay, even after revising and cutting unneeded words my papers still reach maximum word capacity. I just have so much to say I guess!

But, class this past week has taught me that sometimes shortening things: photo lead-ins, headlines, can actually strengthen your writing. And revising can do a world of good! (Thanks Professor Follis for allowing us to revise our research papers!)

Then I had a seemingly opposite experience with writing a speech. I auditioned to give the speech for our EXTREMELY SOON graduation a couple weeks ago. (I can't wait, by the way.) Even though I was unprepared and the speech was four pages too long, I did pretty well. People laughed and I got my cohesive message across.

Then there were call backs. Monday I gave a drastically shortened and changed-up version, thinking it would be better. Perhaps there was too much thinking involved, because long story short, I won't be giving the convocation speech.

I was quite disappointed knowing I have the ability to give a speech well. Of course my ever-thinking brain tries to figure out why I "failed." Did I edit it too much? Was I just not in character? Should I have made more eye contact?

The only thing I can take away is there is not always a right or wrong. And what applies to written words may not apply to those spoken. Really, I just don't think I was as into my speech the second time around.

Perhaps the problem was not in the cutting but in changing the message a bit. Perhaps I should've been more confident in my initial work.

Either way, I tried! Effective communication is a learning process and if I learn how to trust myself, it can only get better from here!

Early morning editing proves perilous!

It was after four in the morning on Tuesday. I had just finished a paper due at nine. I printed my paper. Hungry for sleep, I attempted to slip out of the computer lab. Wait. One of my residents jokingly asks me to edit his Wikipedia article he has to write for a business class. How long is it, I say, just knowing it’s going to be five pages too long and I won’t feel obligated to stay. Oh, about 200 to 500 words. Ugh, fine. I’ll edit it.

I have to say, editing at four in the morning, half asleep, was pretty cool. I actually went line by line. I corrected punctuation (capitalization) and grammar (tense). I suggested clarification and alternate words to use. I also dug deep down into that brain reservoir and pulled out some parallelism for him. And I even explained why I would change certain things, like a good editor should! It was us against the world, the “reporter” and me, informing society about a marine park in Kenya and using good grammar to do it!

I have to admit though, I didn’t check much for accuracy. I was a little too tired for that. Oh well, we all know we shouldn’t trust Wikipedia articles much anyway!

P.S. Don't stay up editing past four in the morning unless you want to walk into your nine 'o clock class an hour late thinking you're on time. Yeah, class would be dismissed 10 minutes after I sat down and I had not clue until I sat down.

Conclusion 1:
I can neither hear alarms nor judge time accurately if I am working on four hours of sleep. (Well, it was really five hours now wasn't it?)

Conclusion 2:
Editing has officially proven perilous to my academic health! How ironic.

Religious identity and news gathering

Should religion ever play a role in news gathering?

I often hear about financial scandals that exist in churches nowadays.

To me, the concept is quite appalling of course. But, it also sounds like a good story idea.

A baptist press even incriminated its own denomination:
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2789&Itemid=120

Still, I'm a church-goer and my church does not have a denomination. In fact, we don't even claim the to be "non-denominational," rather, undenominational. Does my being involved and committed to my particular faith pose a conflict of interest?

How would I go about looking for corruption that exists in "Godly institutions" that are certain denominations or non-denominational? If I believe wholeheartedly I'm in the right religious place, is it immoral, unethical to look for faults in other religious places?

It seems like a sticky situation. Sure, I want to promote the good but can I turn a blind eye if I believe "the good" is being exploited?

And should editors ever ask one's religious preference, or should they ask a reporter if he or she can cover a particular story without bias?

I believe I can be unbiased when reporting, but is looking for stories like this imply bias in itself? Perhaps it's a bias more against wrongdoing and corruption ...

What's this columnist's bias?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/expose-church-f.html

Negativity or reality?

So, I've been on this news positivity kick.

I hear from tons of people who think the news has more negative things to say than positive. And I want to change that.

I'm a bit conflicted, though. I know it is the media's job to be the watchdog and tell the truth, but how many times do we search for the good? I know we're in horrible economic times but how often do we see stories of hope?

I have seen the stories so I know they are there.

Still, is it the media's job to inspire hope or just to tell it like it is? It might help to know if watching the news ever leads to depression.

Anyway, in times like these should we have more stories like this?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/18/economy.college.students/index.html

Good speech

Clouded judgment?

I walked into the conference room of Esquire Magazine Friday pondering a couple questions:

Do you feel your magazine objectifies women?
Does it reinforce demeaning attitudes in men or just serve as a sexual outlet?

I didn't ask my questions though. I was distracted by the speech web director Eric Gillin gave.

A couple things stuck out:

• Stop making excuses.

He gave this analogy of a band without a drummer. A member of the band, perhaps the leader, keeps saying, "Oh, we're going to perform as soon as we get a drummer!"

What would Gillin say to this? Teach yourself how to drum! And do it right now!

We can't keep making excuses for the things we do not know how to do. We have so many resources around us and all we have to do is tap into them.

• We should collaborate with our peers, instead of competing with them.

I feel this disconnect with my peers quite often. Often we are insecure and jealous about someone else's accomplishments. We feel we need to be better than the person next to us and in feeling inadequate we might act like we are superior than others.

Gillin said there is an upside to this hate or jealousy:

Get that person in the newsroom that completely hates your guts to edit your work. Chances are, that will be the most honest editing you're ever going to get!

On a serious note, I know we would be so much more successful if we let our insecurities go and worked to support and build each other up. After all, we might need each other one day when looking for jobs or just needing some kind of help.

Alright, I'm done being idealistic for the day.

I'm very appreciative of the scenery change I experienced last week in New York. It was very refreshing to see the different types of media that exist. I have been given a new lens through which to see the world.

The airplane ride home captured it all. Sitting in the window seat, of course, I don't ever want to forget what I saw in the sky. It was like all I had to do was step outside and walk on top of the those fluffy, milk-white clouds.

The symbolism was thick: I can do anything, go as high as I want.

Next on my list:

Give a good speech.

Make or ... brake the trip?

Off to New York I go.

Off to meet magazine editors we go.

Off to learn, we will travel and grow.

I hope the plane doesn't break down before we go.

Our whole trip would become obsolete.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/p09s02-coop.html

Truth hurts. And having to choose, pains me.

My editing class was given a simple assignment: review a series of graphic and emotive photos. Our difficult task: decide which we would publish.

Two ethical tenets spring to mind when I am faced with making a decision about which photos to publish. A journalist should seek truth and report it. A journalist should also minimize harm.

I think two important questions to consider within the above guidelines are:

Why shouldn't I publish the photo?

Why should I?

The first four photos unveil the 1987 suicide of Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer.

Out of the four I would publish either No. 2 or No. 3. I would not pick Nos. 1 or 4 because, to me, they do not tell the whole story. The first photo does not show what he is about to do with the gun. The fourth has great emotion but one can not tell what really happened just by looking at it. Also, the suicide of a family member is a sensitive issue. If I were related to Mr. Dwyer, I might not enjoy looking at that photo.

But, keeping with that same logic, No. 3 is a bit graphic. People close to this man might feel extremely uncomfortable seeing him, in a published photo, with a gun in his mouth. But, his suicide happened and that picture shows it. My gut tells me, though, that to minimize harm to go with No. 2. I think No. 2 is the safest while telling the most.

The next photo shows a boy grieving for his dog.

I feel it is fair to publish this photo. I realize the dog has sentimental value, but I don't see its death to be as monumental as that of a person. I don't think the boy would be harmed if I published this photo.

The following photo is a bit tricky.

It shows great agony and even shows the body of the boy who has died. At first, I thought I would have no problem publishing it. But it involves the death of a child, a premature passing of a loved-one, and it displays all of the hurt the family is experiencing. I think I might ask the family if they would be comfortable if this photo was published. I would then use their answer as a factor in my decision.

I know that at a funeral the family decides whether to have an open or closed casket. The casket is wide open, in this case, for the world to see. It is very intrusive. However, it is in a public place and can be used to educate people about the dangers of swimming and the importance of keeping an eye on kids in those situations. The mother might actually feel better if the photo was used in this way, as a tool for educating others. This photo can result in good consequences. If used in that way, I say, publish it.

Would I publish the next photo: a man on the floor of a printing plant, sprawled out dead?

Well, I can't see his face. I can't tell if that is blood splattered around his body. His position on the floor is very dramatic, unattractive.

Why publish it? It illustrates a very horrible event, one in which even the killer killed numerous people and himself. It doesn't happen everyday.

Why not publish it? Like the other photos involving death, the family might have an issue with it. The unflattering photo is perhaps a bit disrespectful to the deceased man. I don't know if I see a greater purpose for publishing this photo.

Sure, the photo paints a real picture but what will be the end result? Will Congress be moved to pass laws that ensure greater worker safety? Will the plant heighten security? Would the story alone influence action or is the photo necessary? I'm not sure.

In the next photo, protruding up from a boy's mouth is a fence spike.

When I show others this photo, they gasp. This photo should deter anyone from playing on spike fences. On the whole, I don't see this photo as harmful. The boy in the photo lived. Although he might be embarrassed by it, he did induce his injury. Publish it.

The last photo is easy for me.

The woman in the photo was sexually harassed. Even though you cannot see her face, she has to live with this abuse for the rest of her life. My initial reaction is not to publish it.

However, the photo is definitely newsworthy and I could see how it might move people to take action, and they should. Before considering publication I would ask the woman how she felt about it and do what she says. If she said yes then I would consider how this photo might influence the broader society. It is very explicit and perhaps a bit obscene, so I don't know if it is morally decent to show this type of action. But it sheds light on a repulsive act that needs to be dealt with.

OK, so I thought I knew where I stood, but now I don't know. Do people have a right not to see half-naked bodies in the news? I don't want to see it. It makes me a bit upset in this case. But should it be shown? Should people see what goes on at this event? Will it deter them or influence them to act this way behind the scenes? I don't know.

Editing in stereo: editing out stereotypes

How can we avoid overediting, echoing stories that sound like stereotypes?

“When I was in college, I could see signs that said ’white’ and ‘colored’ when I went to the movie theater. That was an easy target for me to aim at,” says Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP board. “Today, I don’t see those signs, but I know that these divisions still exist.”

This quote is from an Associated Press story the DI ran Thursday. After reading the whole story I was a bit disappointed.

Sure, Bond says divisions still exist, but no where in the article does it state what those divisions are. And it’s ironic because one of the points of the article is to show that the NAACP is working on convincing people discrimination still exists. However, the article fails to include the part that would do the convincing.

In fact, I could see how people reading this story might easily be unconvinced and think this Bond lady is just an ungrateful black woman who has nothing better to do than complain. (Haha, who's posting this blog?)

Interestingly, I could not find the article online at the DI’s Web site, but I found a longer version on the Pennsylvania Times Herald’s Web site: http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2009/02/12/news/doc4993c6dccfcdc739983360.txt

Here’s a passage paraphrasing the CEO of the NAACP from the Herald’s story that the DI cut from its story:

He cites figures such as a 70 percent unsolved murder rate in some black communities, blacks graduating from high school at a far lower rate than whites, and studies showing that whites with criminal records get jobs easier than blacks with clean histories.

When I read the DI story I wanted the quotes to be backed up. Now I see that they were but someone made a decision to cut it from the story.

It would be helpful if the information included in the Herald’s story was also backed up by reliable statistics instead of coming from another person, but it’s getting there. Still, to make a story credible, fair shouldn’t we spend the extra time finding those numbers, making sure they are accurate or not? And then, why not keep going? Why are those numbers important? What do people think about them? Let's talk to people who are unconvinced and see why.

Anyway, I know things like limited space may leave unanswered questions, but I think it is important to make sure one is sensitive to how the information we’ve decided to include will come across.

Since I’m very passionate about race relations and my mission is to use journalism to bring people together, perhaps I see these things more. Still, I am very sensitive to how all sides perceive things and I think that what we can learn from this story is worthwhile.

Consequently, I think we should be conscious of how we portray minorities’ issues. We need to show why they are relevant, why people should care. (To me it’s clear why they are relevant, since I know resolving or at least reporting on issues that divide us will result in greater harmony, but I digress.)

I just think that when we’re editing we need to make sure we don’t edit in or out information that implicitly reinforces stereotypes, leaving in part of the story, when the other part(s) may be necessary for the issue to sink in. I know it’s hard with pressing deadlines and limited space, but for the fairness’ sake we must try harder.

Third ... or fourth or fifth "like's" (not) the charm

So, like, I was sitting in my Leisure and Consumer Culture class the other day when the flashback hit.

There was a kid trying to explain his point of view to the teacher about something or other. The reason I don't remember his point is because the "like" he used every other time he spoke, overshadowed his comments. "Well, it's like, because of, like ..." I mean, he must've said it, like, 10 times in 30 seconds.

And I couldn't blame the kid because I know I do the same thing. When I don't know what to say or I'm really fired up, I often insert a "like" here or there ... OK everywhere. I don't know why many of us use this subordinating conjunction as a predicate adjective (I think) but, like, we do.

And it's funny, because I never thought I would get in trouble for it. Two semesters ago, in Professor Leon Dash's Reporting II class, I was singled out for my loose use of the word. He told me that if I ever wanted to portray myself as a qualified candidate for a job, I must talk more professionally. He probably said something about my mom not approving, and something like even when I talk to my friends I must make an effort to talk better ... but whatever.

Oh, and of course, guess what happened? About 10 months later (last week), I was talking to a close friend of mine. Again, I can't remember what I was trying to say, but I know I was really trying hard to say something. Of course, he so poignantly points out my flawed speech pattern and laughs. Disgraceful. I just can't leave "like" alone.

Why is it, though, that when we write we do not use (or, abuse) "like" in the same neurotic fashion as when we speak? Perhaps we know to be more professional when we write. Perhaps we feel less on-the-spot and so we don't lose consciousness as easily when we write. Still, we make a lot of other grammatical mistakes in our writing too.

I think we should learn how to be more conscious when we do both. And this class thrusts grammar to the forefront of my consciousness. (Did you like that active verb?) You know, before I took this class I never used to feel a sense of gratification for consciously strengthening my verbs. I never used to mosey from class daydreaming about grammar. But, it's possible that striving to think gramatically better and speak gramatically better, might just help us become better writers.

I think we also just need to relax. It's just, like, when we have something to say, we should just, like, say it without getting all, like, flustered and stuff.
___
Check out this article on the consequences of damaging filler words and how to overcome them. I think I have a problem.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Damaging-Verbal-Filler-Words-Repairing-Your-Speech&id=1759558

Oh, and this video might help too, although I was a little offended. http://www.ehow.com/video_4403285_conversational-speeches-filler-words.html

Grammar exercise

Everyone needs grammar exercise! Enjoy.

http://users.telenet.be/oldlark2002/GRAMMAR/GERUND-INFINITIVE-PRESENT-PARTICIPLE-1-.htm

Going back to grammar school

Using the verbs on today's homework (rush, drive, settle, lose, complete, reduce, fund, dream and restructure), and changing them into verbals, I will describe my painful experience so far with relearning grammar my senior year of college. Making life hard for myself is what I do.


Excitement about learning how to edit, caused me to rush to class the first day. (infinitive)

Driven by pure, palpable passion I listened attentively as we learned literary terms and parts of speech. (participle)

Settling too soon in comfort, my confusion over where to place a comma, foreshadowed a change. (gerund)

My sanity has taken a turn for the worst: I am losing my mind with all of these confusing grammar rules! (participle)

And after the first eight and a half minute quiz, my life was thrown into complete turmoil. (participle)

I realize, that to reduce grammar stress I may have to read more books and do more grammar exercises. (infinitive)

I wonder if funding students' homework assignments might motivate them more. (gerund)

Surely, dreaming of a little grammar incentive is not a crime. (gerund)

If one were to restructure grammar to make it easier, that might help too. (infinitive)


So, does everyone agree I used the verbals right? Can you spot more verbals? I can! I think grammar school is working ... I hope.