|
Here are some tips
for reporters and editors on usage issues in journalism.
Sexism
It is often possible to phrase sentences so that
they neither give offence to women nor become
hideously complicated. Using the plural can be
helpful. Thus, instruct the reader without lecturing
him is better put as instruct readers without
lecturing them. But some sentences cannot be satisfactorily
rephrased in the plural. For eg, The next prime
minister of India, whether she belongs to the
Congress or the BJP, will have to get on with
the president.
Since most alternatives
to man words (such as chairperson, humankind and
person in the street) are as ugly as the expression
gender-neutral, they are best avoided. But remember
that, in some contexts, the assumption that all
people are men will be especially annoying just
because it is wrong. He will have to choose
the best man for the job is fine if you are
talking about the shankaracharya selecting a successor.
If you are talking about the prime minister appointing
a new member to his cabinet, it is better to say
He will have to choose the best person for
the job.
Slang
Do not be too free with slang (eg: He really hit
the big time in 2000). Slang, like metaphors,
should be used only occasionally if it is to have
effect. Avoid expressions used only by journalists,
such as giving people the thumbs up, the thumbs
down or the green light. Try staying clear of
gravy trains, brownie points and
the likes of. And avoid words or expressions
that are ugly or overused, such as bottom line,
drop-dead gorgeous, pizzazz, chutzpah,
carers, guesstimate (try
guess), crisis, key, major, massive, perceptions
and prestigious.
Shockers
Scan any newspaper and you will, almost inevitably,
come across at least one report that starts with
In a shocking incident... This is hideous,
and hardly shocking to readers who have this kind
of writing inflicted on them far too often. The
intention should be to describe the incident in
a manner that leaves the reader shocked (or terrified,
if the the incident is truly terrible).
Some journalists
get their knickers in a knot trying to come up
with substitute words for the common says and
said. So you have informs and informed
(always wrong in this context) and opines
and opined (always horrendous in this
and almost every other context). Using says
and said often may be boring —
but never wrong. And a little verbal dexterity
can reduce their usage considerably.
Politicians are
often said to be highly visible, when conspicuous
would be more appropriate. Regulations are sometimes
said to be designed to create transparency, which
presumably means they are intended to let people
know what is going on.
- Brevity is the
soul of journalism, too. If you need 1,000 words
to explain something that can be said in 500
or less, you are in the wrong profession. Try
the bureaucracy.
- Editors should
respect good writing. A writer's style should
reflect his or her mind and personality. So
long they are compatible with the publication's,
and so long as the prose is good, editors should
exercise suitable self-restraint. Remember that
your copy, too, will be edited. And even if
you think you are not guilty, bear in mind this
comment.
Most writers have
tales to tell of being mangled by editors, and
naturally it is the fragrant instances they choose
to single out — absurdities, outright distortions
of meaning, glaring errors. But most of the damage
done is a good deal less spectacular. It consists
of small changes (usually too boring to describe
to anyone else) that flatten a writer's style,
slow down his argument, neutralise his irony;
that ruin the rhythm of a sentence or the balance
of a paragraph; that deaden the tone that makes
the music. Call it a process of 'de-sophistication.'
By
arrangement with www.prdomain.com
Back
to Style guide index
|
