It's my last blog post for J420! Yay!... I mean, noooooooooooooooooooooo
Alright, I'm done. Let's now turn my attention to the Language Log, which I blogged about earlier in the semester.
Here's the blog post from the Language Log that I'm going to comment about: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1396.
This column talks about a critique that someone wrote about how a study released by Ellen J. Langer et al. (1978) used generalizations.
It was interesting to read about how a scientific study was subtly twisted (most likely accidentally) that likely skewed results. And all of this had to do with wording, not numbers or experimental facts and figures.
Perhaps this got me thinking about science-based copy editing, a field I may be going into after I graduate from this fine institution. Let me stress the MAY. Not because I don't want to do it, but because I'm a little afraid of how well I'll do on this test my potential employers will be giving to me. Although the test will surely be about copy editing, I can't help but wonder if they throw in a few questions about quantum physics or something. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy science. "Quantum Leap" is probably my favorite TV show of all time, so if that doesn't show my dedication to the field, I don't know what does. (half kidding?)
Anyway... I think it's important to have people from copy editing backgrounds pursue careers in science editing. Not only will they be able to make sure wordings don't confuse readers, but, becuase they are not completely absorbed in the technicalities and jargon of researchers, they'll be able to step back from the research to see if something sounds wrong. And we won't feel stupid for asking questions, becuause we'll look foolish to a research writer no matter what we do.
Basically, copy writers should be everywhere! It's not only about grammar; it's about making sense and not twisting the truth, intentionally or not.
Cheers!
Monday, May 4, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
I don't know how much this has to do with copy editing, but I'm going to talk about advertising and journalism anyway.
It seems that the only thing people know about the future of journalism is that the way advertising operates is going to have to change. Why? Well, we all seem to blame it on the Internet. Actually, we seem to blame Internet users for not wanting to watch advertisements or pay subscriptions.
But before newspaper corporations and businesses that are having a hard time advertising start pointing fingers (well, they kind of have already), they need to realize that they are the ones who created this situation. It's not the Internet's fault, and it's not the users' faults either.
Come to think of it, it's not even the fault of the companies who built Internet sites (although they're more at fault than anyone else, because they chose not to charge people with subscriptions). Back when the Web was starting out, people weren't thinking about making money. It was a cool thing with lots of potential; companies probably weren't thinking about how one day, that cool thing would be both their lifesaver and their downfall at the same time.
In short, the Internet, its users, and the companies who are trying to profit from it are all at fault for the mess we're in today. But this whole mess was unavoidable. If companies had bombarded people with ads and/or charged for subscriptions from the get go, who knows, the Internet might not have caught on as fast...
It seems that the only thing people know about the future of journalism is that the way advertising operates is going to have to change. Why? Well, we all seem to blame it on the Internet. Actually, we seem to blame Internet users for not wanting to watch advertisements or pay subscriptions.
But before newspaper corporations and businesses that are having a hard time advertising start pointing fingers (well, they kind of have already), they need to realize that they are the ones who created this situation. It's not the Internet's fault, and it's not the users' faults either.
Come to think of it, it's not even the fault of the companies who built Internet sites (although they're more at fault than anyone else, because they chose not to charge people with subscriptions). Back when the Web was starting out, people weren't thinking about making money. It was a cool thing with lots of potential; companies probably weren't thinking about how one day, that cool thing would be both their lifesaver and their downfall at the same time.
In short, the Internet, its users, and the companies who are trying to profit from it are all at fault for the mess we're in today. But this whole mess was unavoidable. If companies had bombarded people with ads and/or charged for subscriptions from the get go, who knows, the Internet might not have caught on as fast...
Monday, April 20, 2009
Quantity VS Quality... the endless debate
The American Journalism Review's article, "The Quality Control Quandary," got me even more depressed about the future of journalism than I was during lecture today. Although several of the sources quoted in Carl Sessions Stepp's piece seemed either optimistic or neutral about how news is becoming increasingly web oriented, I can't say I feel the same way.
Sure, more editors does not necessarily ensure better editing. But, in most cases, it increases the chances at errors getting caught.
This opinion is not groundbreaking. In fact, it seems that most people in the field of journalism agree. So why is it that editors are the first to get fired?
It comes down to priorities, as all business decisions do. But these priorities seem to be leading journalism into a bad direction.
It's not just the fact that fewer editors means those who survived round 17 of job cuts have to work twice as hard, but they have to work twice as hard as their initial twice as hard because of the demands of readers. With the Internet, we want more, faster. Poor editors! How the heck are they supposed to get anything done other than the bare minimum? If journalism continues like this, stories will be press releases, not watch dog-esque, hard-hitting news.
Although editors do not determine the depth at which reporters delve into their stories, if cuts are being made so willy-nillyly (sorry about the fake words I’m using), who’s to say the cuts won’t transfer to the reporters? In fact, it already has.
At the very least, the huge demands made on the speed at which we receive news is making reporters focus less on asking probing questions, and more on asking “who,” “what,” “where,” and “when” and “how.” Who cares about “why.”
Regardless, we must be careful not to blame consumers. Just because there’s an increasing demand doesn’t mean the demand was entirely brought about by the consumers. Much of the demand was created because online news agencies thought they could do it all.
If they stuck with in depth stories or tip of the iceberg ones, perhaps there would be less stress overall. Niche news seems to be the most realistic bet for our evolving world.
Sure, more editors does not necessarily ensure better editing. But, in most cases, it increases the chances at errors getting caught.
This opinion is not groundbreaking. In fact, it seems that most people in the field of journalism agree. So why is it that editors are the first to get fired?
It comes down to priorities, as all business decisions do. But these priorities seem to be leading journalism into a bad direction.
It's not just the fact that fewer editors means those who survived round 17 of job cuts have to work twice as hard, but they have to work twice as hard as their initial twice as hard because of the demands of readers. With the Internet, we want more, faster. Poor editors! How the heck are they supposed to get anything done other than the bare minimum? If journalism continues like this, stories will be press releases, not watch dog-esque, hard-hitting news.
Although editors do not determine the depth at which reporters delve into their stories, if cuts are being made so willy-nillyly (sorry about the fake words I’m using), who’s to say the cuts won’t transfer to the reporters? In fact, it already has.
At the very least, the huge demands made on the speed at which we receive news is making reporters focus less on asking probing questions, and more on asking “who,” “what,” “where,” and “when” and “how.” Who cares about “why.”
Regardless, we must be careful not to blame consumers. Just because there’s an increasing demand doesn’t mean the demand was entirely brought about by the consumers. Much of the demand was created because online news agencies thought they could do it all.
If they stuck with in depth stories or tip of the iceberg ones, perhaps there would be less stress overall. Niche news seems to be the most realistic bet for our evolving world.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Outsourcing editors
Because there is more and more text that needs editing (with the Internet exploding, yada yada), employers looking to save a few bucks have gone knocking on India's door for editing positions, rather than helping their own countrymen out in a time of desperation. Time of desperation or not, with every job under the moon being outsourced to India, it's only fitting that editing the English language go over there too.
After all, our hard-working, low-waged economic frenemies have always answered the door. And they've worked their butts off on the job.
But as much as I love and respect Indians, I have a problem with this. Not only is English not the primary language of the majority of the India copy editors, but it is not even a language that many of them are fluent in. Sure, they know vocabulary well, but there have been problems with how well outsourced editors know English grammar.
One American business owner said, "[T]he language barrier was too much to overcome. Many mistakes were made in trying to do work in English (mostly grammatical errors, not spelling errors) which made the entire project a waste since I had to go through and correct (reword) a ton of the work." (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=144311)
The argument could be made that many of the Americans looking to outsource did not spend enough time looking for a quality place to find employees with great English grammar. But those who are actually good probably demand more money. Even if that's less than you'd have to spend to hire American, they (Indians) probably will have plenty of opportunities from other American businessmen, because the demand for outsourcing will always be there.
But with this economic climate, rather than looking abroad, employers need to look within. For example, they need to look at already-discouraged soon-to-be journalism graduates who are willing to work for cheap. Wink, wink.
After all, our hard-working, low-waged economic frenemies have always answered the door. And they've worked their butts off on the job.
But as much as I love and respect Indians, I have a problem with this. Not only is English not the primary language of the majority of the India copy editors, but it is not even a language that many of them are fluent in. Sure, they know vocabulary well, but there have been problems with how well outsourced editors know English grammar.
One American business owner said, "[T]he language barrier was too much to overcome. Many mistakes were made in trying to do work in English (mostly grammatical errors, not spelling errors) which made the entire project a waste since I had to go through and correct (reword) a ton of the work." (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=144311)
The argument could be made that many of the Americans looking to outsource did not spend enough time looking for a quality place to find employees with great English grammar. But those who are actually good probably demand more money. Even if that's less than you'd have to spend to hire American, they (Indians) probably will have plenty of opportunities from other American businessmen, because the demand for outsourcing will always be there.
But with this economic climate, rather than looking abroad, employers need to look within. For example, they need to look at already-discouraged soon-to-be journalism graduates who are willing to work for cheap. Wink, wink.
Monday, March 30, 2009
I love making fun of this stuff
The best photo I took during my family road trip to the University of Alabama this spring break was inside a workout facility. No, I'm not a creeper who takes pictures of sweaty people. I took a picture of a directory, with arrows pointing all over the place, telling students where they could find the nearest bathroom or climbing wall.
Of course, I focused in on one word: womens.
According to the English language, though, that's not a word. Yet, Alabama must think it is. The same directory was placed elsewhere in the facility, with the same glaring mistake.
But since many of the gym's employees gave me strange looks as I snapped a picture during the tour (they must have thought I was a camera-happy, overly eager incoming freshman), I doubt they even realized its misspelling. In all fairness, most people probably have to pee so badly that the word "womens" could be replaced with womans, womans', womens', women or wemen, and the message would still be received, and no one would think about it twice (I don't know about the last one, though).
Still, how hard is it to realize that the word "women" is already plural, so adding an "s" to it is redundant, not to mention, wrong? I suppose I wouldn't have as big a deal with this if it wasn't used by a university in multiple places. And I think the whole my-sister-may-go-to-a-college-that-can't-grammar-check thing probably adds to my frustration.
By the way, what's up with that European town that wants to eliminate all the apostrophes from its road signs? That just encourages laziness.
Alright, I'm officially getting off my high horse now. I need to go to the ladieses room.
Of course, I focused in on one word: womens.
According to the English language, though, that's not a word. Yet, Alabama must think it is. The same directory was placed elsewhere in the facility, with the same glaring mistake.
But since many of the gym's employees gave me strange looks as I snapped a picture during the tour (they must have thought I was a camera-happy, overly eager incoming freshman), I doubt they even realized its misspelling. In all fairness, most people probably have to pee so badly that the word "womens" could be replaced with womans, womans', womens', women or wemen, and the message would still be received, and no one would think about it twice (I don't know about the last one, though).
Still, how hard is it to realize that the word "women" is already plural, so adding an "s" to it is redundant, not to mention, wrong? I suppose I wouldn't have as big a deal with this if it wasn't used by a university in multiple places. And I think the whole my-sister-may-go-to-a-college-that-can't-grammar-check thing probably adds to my frustration.
By the way, what's up with that European town that wants to eliminate all the apostrophes from its road signs? That just encourages laziness.
Alright, I'm officially getting off my high horse now. I need to go to the ladieses room.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Quit playing games with my heart, language
When I was eating lunch with my friends this afternoon, I told them to tell me what to write about for this blog. The only thing related to language/grammar/editing that I had encountered was a grammatically incorrect Bible passage on a stained-glass window in St. John’s chapel (If I remember correctly, it said Jesus would save all that needed saving, not all who did).
If I hadn’t run into my friends, that would be my blog post. One sentence about how the dudes who translated the Bible into English weren’t exactly grammar freaks. I’ll put in another sentence about how I would never have noticed that if it wasn’t for editing class (brownie points?). And I’ll slab in another about how hilarious it is to imagine the translator consulting the AP Style Book.
Enough about that. Let’s resume talking about how I forced my friends to do my thinking for me. Of course, they didn’t bite. They were too focused on cheating at the Daily Illini crossword puzzle. But one of my friends, Kaitlin, decided to take a crossword break to take a bite out of a Girl Scout cookie.
But before she did, she had to explain to me the horror of the cookie! It wasn’t a Samoa; it was a Caramel deLite! Ahhhhhhh!
What’s the big deal, I asked. That’s what I always called them. And what the heck is a Tagalong? How would you have any way of knowing there’s peanut butter inside it? Naturally, the correct name is a Peanut Butter Pattie. DUH.
I guess that was the wrong thing to say.
Just like it seems to be the wrong thing for Willis Holdings to rename the Sears Tower the Willis Tower.
It seems as if Kaitlin’s reaction to the Girl Scout cookie’s name change and most of Chicago’s reaction to the Sears Tower name change provide proof that proper nouns elicit more emotional responses than any other part of language.
Why is that? What's so important about a name that makes us so attached to it?
Perhaps it's the same reason children name stuffed animals or middle-aged men name their new cars. We want ownership over the object. By naming it, we solidify that feeling. We invest in it. We become it. (OK, maybe that's a little much)
Although Kaitlin did not name the Girl Scout cookies, and Mayor Daley did not take a poll deciding what the name of the then-world's tallest building would be (he'd just have dead people vote in it anyway), we still feel attached to it. But we don't realize how much we identify the place or thing by its name until it changes. Kind of like how you don't realize what you have until it's gone.
Often, with the names of proper nouns, we rely on its name as one of its defining characteristics. Although Tagalong is a ridiculous name that could just as easily describe an annoying little sibling, to Kaitlin, and I'm sure many other people, it's part of what makes the cookie unique. Otherwise, it's just a cookie.
Marketers realize this, of course, which is why they'd prefer to keep the names. But money talks, so the Sears Tower is gone just like Marshall Field's and Komisky Park.
Dang you, language! If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't care less.
If I hadn’t run into my friends, that would be my blog post. One sentence about how the dudes who translated the Bible into English weren’t exactly grammar freaks. I’ll put in another sentence about how I would never have noticed that if it wasn’t for editing class (brownie points?). And I’ll slab in another about how hilarious it is to imagine the translator consulting the AP Style Book.
Enough about that. Let’s resume talking about how I forced my friends to do my thinking for me. Of course, they didn’t bite. They were too focused on cheating at the Daily Illini crossword puzzle. But one of my friends, Kaitlin, decided to take a crossword break to take a bite out of a Girl Scout cookie.
But before she did, she had to explain to me the horror of the cookie! It wasn’t a Samoa; it was a Caramel deLite! Ahhhhhhh!
What’s the big deal, I asked. That’s what I always called them. And what the heck is a Tagalong? How would you have any way of knowing there’s peanut butter inside it? Naturally, the correct name is a Peanut Butter Pattie. DUH.
I guess that was the wrong thing to say.
Just like it seems to be the wrong thing for Willis Holdings to rename the Sears Tower the Willis Tower.
It seems as if Kaitlin’s reaction to the Girl Scout cookie’s name change and most of Chicago’s reaction to the Sears Tower name change provide proof that proper nouns elicit more emotional responses than any other part of language.
Why is that? What's so important about a name that makes us so attached to it?
Perhaps it's the same reason children name stuffed animals or middle-aged men name their new cars. We want ownership over the object. By naming it, we solidify that feeling. We invest in it. We become it. (OK, maybe that's a little much)
Although Kaitlin did not name the Girl Scout cookies, and Mayor Daley did not take a poll deciding what the name of the then-world's tallest building would be (he'd just have dead people vote in it anyway), we still feel attached to it. But we don't realize how much we identify the place or thing by its name until it changes. Kind of like how you don't realize what you have until it's gone.
Often, with the names of proper nouns, we rely on its name as one of its defining characteristics. Although Tagalong is a ridiculous name that could just as easily describe an annoying little sibling, to Kaitlin, and I'm sure many other people, it's part of what makes the cookie unique. Otherwise, it's just a cookie.
Marketers realize this, of course, which is why they'd prefer to keep the names. But money talks, so the Sears Tower is gone just like Marshall Field's and Komisky Park.
Dang you, language! If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't care less.
Monday, March 9, 2009
So, I don't want to sound mean or anything, but you know those free newspapers you find in hotel lobbies? They stink. I understand that they're free and all, but since there are ads in the paper, The Broad Ripple Gazette has to be getting some kind of money. I suggest they put in hiring copy editors, since some of the writing is atrocious. Actually, most of the writing is pretty terrible. I doubt copy editors will be able to salvage much of the writing, but they can catch several easy mistakes that would make the newspaper easier to tolerate.
For example, all the reported stories in Indianapolis' Broad Ripple Gazette begin with stating the date. "On Saturday, February 21, an open house was held..." "On Friday, March 6, from 5 pm to 10 pm the Robert Kennington American Legion Post #34..." you get the picture.
If they spent $10 on an Associated Press Style Book, they'd prevent a ton of mistakes (the proper way of writing p.m. and a.m. would be one of them).
It sounds like I'm being a smart ***/a**/a _ _/[posterior], but I'm actually quite serious. I understand that the Ripple is probably not trying to win the Pulitzer or anything, but if they want to be a down-home newspaper, trying to use proper grammar might be nice.
Alright, enough Broad bashing.
I now turn my attention to the AP Stylebook. It's actually quite interesting. I don't read it nearly as much as I should, but I appreciate it more than just about any other book I own. I don't think it should be limited to journalism, since it's essentially a way of making information as clean, clear and under control as possible. Why shouldn't it be used everywhere?
Also, since journalists are arguably the most widely read writers in the world (day-to-day), isn't that reason enough to use their style of language? Since it's what we are most familiar with, we arguably understand that style of writing the best. And if it's the most common style we know, why shouldn't everyone be familiar with its dictionary, the AP Stylebook?
It'd never hurt for high school kids to buy a stylebook, since it's less intimidating than slabbing a dictionary in front of them. In fact, it's more likely to help stick various grammar or other terms in their brains than anything else.
And it's easy to use AND accessible. Which is why the Broad Ripple Gazette has no excuse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)