Science Editing

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!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

To publish, or not to publish...

Tricky, tricky. Deciding whether or not to publish potentially distasteful photographs in a newspaper ain’t easy. But here are my thoughts why these photos should be published or not:

1a; 2a; 3a; 4a – Publish them all. If I had to limit it to three pictures, it’d be 1a, 3a, and 4a. If only two could published, I’d have 3a and 4a, and if I could only publish one photo, I’d have 3a published.

However, the photos work best in a series. By itself, 1a is a plain photo. But its significance is what makes the photo essential. R. Budd Dwyer literally sets the stage for what is about to happen with the way he holds out his hand to the audience. Intentionally or not, he’s acknowledging that he's on display, and that we're always watching. This creates an eerie nature to the scene, not only because he’s about to kill himself in front of the media, but because he’s a politician at a press conference -- a scene we all thought we were familiar with. In short, without 1a, the irony and oddity of the situation would be lost.

And without 4a, there would be no point in publishing any of the photos. People may say that 4a should not be published at all, since it is graphic in how you can see the Dwyer shoot himself dead. But there is nothing gruesome about the photo other than the context of the situation. And even then, the context isn’t too revolting, since the man was only harming himself.

1 – Publish

Oddly enough, it was tougher to decide whether or not to publish this photo of a little boy grieving the loss of his dog’s life than the photo of the suicidal politician guy.

One of the reasons for that is because of the subject’s age. In this photo, the distraught emotions of a small child is about to go on display. Since that is the case, it is important to understand the effects on the boy if he sees his photo in the paper. Would it prompt him to get sadder? I doubt it. The photo does not depict a mangled-looking dead dog, and it merely shows the boy crying by him. The only reluctance I have to publishing this photo is what the little boy’s reaction would be.

2 – Do NOT publish

You can see the face of the dead boy, so this is a definite no-no in my mind. Case closed.

3 – Do NOT publish

Hmmm… This is a murdered adult whose face you cannot see… But he is still a murder victim. I don’t think any photo that shows the mangled body of a murder victim should be published without the family's consent.

4 – Publish

If the boy died, I would not publish the photo. But since he’s OK, I think it’s OK to print it. However, he appears to be on private property. Since that is the case, permission from he or his parents to publish the photos must be given.

Although this gives me the heebie-jeebies, it’s still a great picture. And it’s difficult to see how it could offend anyone.

5 – Do NOT Publish (but I really want to)

This gave me the hardest time. Part of me desperately wants to publish the picture, so readers can see the faces of all the sexist pigs THAT (they’re not human) molested the woman. It's one of the most disgusting photographs I’ve ever seen… which is why I want it published. Not because I enjoy seeing others suffer, but because I want to know what’s out there. That’s the whole point of news, isn’t it?

Also, since there is absolutely no way of identifying the woman (Since I doubt any of those pigs actually knew her name, and since she certainly won’t be willingly giving it out), there’s no way anyone other than the victim could get offended… right?

Even if that is right, it doesn’t matter. In a sexual assault case, no photo should go public without the consent of the victim. Although it’s a great photo, seeing her body splashed over the covers of newspapers could be another punch in the stomach for the victim.

MIsspelled signs and stuff

One of my favorite things about driving home to Chicagoland is looking out the window as the bus chugs down the Expressway. Although the view is mostly farmland, there are always amusing billboards to look at to keep entertained.

Usually, the amusing billboards are the ones advertising adult enterntainment stores or Amish villages. They seem more earnest and real, unlike the corporate ads that pop up every five feet once you hit the outskirts of the city.

But this Friday, the most amusing billboard I saw came from the unlikliest of places.

There was a picture of a little girl, and the caption said "Diana vs Leucemia."

Immediately I did a double take. But since we were driving, I couldn't exactly look back to see if I saw what I thought I saw. But I was fairly certain they spelled Leukemia wrong. How could they do that? What kind of bozos don't check the spelling of a cancer billboard? It's one thing to misspell something in a beer billboard, but cancer?

When I got home, I looked online to see if I was correct my spelling of Leukemia.

Yes, I was correct.

But I was wrong about the billboard. In fact, Leucemia is an alternate spelling of Leukemia.

Whoops. Apparently I shouldn't have patted myself on the back after all.

But it reminded me of an article I read last year in the Chicago Tribune about a group of friends whose hobby was to drive around Chicago and find all the grammatical errors on signs, billboards, businesses, etc. They took photos and created a website to document it and, and for the life of me, I can't find it.

Anyway, back to my Leukemia/Leucemia problem. I think that more people refer to the disease with a "k" instead of a "c." I must admit that I'm partial to it, since people often think my last name starts with a "c."

Regardless, if there are two common spellings, how do you know what to refer to it by? The AP Stylebook doesn't have a Leukemia/Leucemia entry, so are both correct? I suppose they are. But perhaps diseases should be dealt with differently, since spelling it two ways may make it seem as if you're talking about two different diseases. Who knows...

I want to be a detective!

Although I couldn’t have been more wrong, it was fun editing the astronomically incorrect story of the bus and car crashing. Who would’ve thought that four letters (east versus west) would change the entire meaning?

As the copy editor, I love/hated that activity. Part of me wants more stories like that; then again, my job would’ve – and should’ve – been easier if the reporter was correct.

Still, I find myself rooting for stories to be terrible. Is that bad? I want to seethe through text like a detective mulls over evidence, knowing that something is clearly wrong, but not knowing what, where, when, why or how the heck it got that way. It’s kind of a thrill.

But I have a hunch that if I become a professional copy editor, I won’t want the thrills. Unlike editing in a classroom, there’s a lot on the line in the real world of actually having people read your work.

Editing in class is like driving the simulator in Driver’s Ed. You don’t have to worry about running over the pedestrians, since they’re all wearing bell bottoms and tweed jackets… oh, and they’re not real. If I make a mistake in editing class, it’s not like I’d be throwing the integrity of a news organization out the window. The worst case scenario is that I get points docked from my grade. Or I fail the class, which would kind of mean that I won’t be able to graduate…Oh well. At least there is no publication getting publicly humiliated because I spelled Whicker with an “h” instead of a “k.”

Although I doubt copy editors truly feel as if they’re detectives trying to track down killers, or hard-nosed cops testing the witness’ story to see if has any faults, perhaps they should. It might make them have more careful eyes. Although it sounds silly, getting into the mindset that reporters and/or sources are either trying to pull fast ones on you, or accidentally doing it, will never hurt. It should be an automatic part of the job description. Pretending that all stories are surrounded by clouds of mystery will just ensure that copy editors maintain that.

And if the editing becomes extremely dull, by pretending that all stories are surrounded by clouds of mystery that only you can clear up and bring to justice, you might actually have fun looking up someone’s name in the phone book.

Language Log blog

The Language Log was started out of the Univeristy of Pennsylvania, so, naturally, the bloggers all have Ivy League vocabularies. In fact, it seems as if each post serves to remind readers just that. So, I don't recommend perusing the Log unless you enjoy reading the dictionary in your spare time. I have nothing against the dictionary; but as I read the articles/blogs posted to the website, I found myself wishing that I had gotten to know Webster better. Oh well.

Anyway, the main reason the Log seems to have created is to dissect every phrase, jargon, and misused word. There are definitely some interesting parts to some of the posts, but for the most part, it was hard for a mere journalism student to sit through. Perhaps that has to do with how nearly every blogger subscribes to the same blog structure: Slab huge chunks of text from another author and write a few lines about how a word on the 17th line was the subject of a heated debate. Then, talk about something completely different than what you originally intended. I suppose bloggers are allowed to do whatever they want, but still. Don't intentionally try to lose me, so that only the best and most dedicated language freaks survive the entire post.

still, there are some definite interesting things about the blog. For example, I learned a new slang term from reading one blogger's take on "salted.” Apparently, it’s a third-party insult used by school kids exclusively in the Boston area.

Here's how I think it's supposed to be used:

LITTLE BOBBY

(to Little Joey)

You smell!

Little Joey fights back tears.

LITTLE HORATIO

You got salted!

It’s kind of amusing; I think I may use it myself. But that's not the point of the post. The cool thing was how the blogger used the observations of another author to comment on the slang. The blog's author, Benjamin Zimmer, talks about how the author of the article commenting on "salted" is essentially stroking the egos of Bostonians. I agree. Boston seems to pride itself on having a weird lexicon, so by pointing out how different they supposedly are, the author feeds their egos. Zimmer says of the author whose story he is referencing:

“Baker, however, wants salted to say much more about ‘this city, its people, and our wicked sense of humor.’ Investing so much revelatory power in one particular word can make for a compelling magazine article, but it's another form of pop-Whorfian reductionism nonetheless.”

So basically, the Boston kids who use the term “salted” don’t actually know what the word they’re saying means and from where it originates. And by acting like they are so special, Bostonians are trying to create their own self-fulfilling prophecies. If we tell everyone we're different and unique, maybe people will believe it!

Although i agree with Zimmer, he took way to long to say that. The part I quoted was the last bit of his rather long entry.

my favorite post was talking about how German uses ridiculously long compound nouns. Take Generalstaatsverordnetenversammlungen for example. Mark Twain says it means "General-statesrepresentativesmeetings." Twain was pretty much the entire post, which was great, but kind of defeated the purpose of having a blog by a bunch of U Penn grammar crazies. Still, someone's gotta be the language police.

Free Money!

If there's one tactic all editors should subscribe to, creating outlandish headlines for the sake of getting viewers is it. Sensationalism rules the roost, so why bother being ethical?

Go on, refute me. Actually, ignore me.

Enough of the stupidity. Part of the reason false headlines are on my mind is because of the column I wrote for an issue of the Daily Illini last week. The headline above my article said "Obama: an 'Everyman' Superman."

I admit that my story probably gave the copy editors a tough time to come up with a quick and snappy headline. But I think there should have been no headline rather than one that didn't grasp the point of my article. I never once said President Obama was an "Everyman," nor did I say he was a Superman. I merely said that he has been trying to portray himself as such in order to appeal to Americans. To reiterate, never once in my column did I take sides with the President; never once in my article did I oppose him.

By saying that Obama IS an everyman superman, the headline took away everything I had been avoiding in my article. I didn't want to alienate any reader with my opinion of the president, since I knew that wouldn't get my point across. Not only that, but taking sides wasn't relevant.

But before a reader read a single word of my column, they already had in his/her mind exactly what I was going to say.

Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill... who knows? But I still think it is imperative for headlines to match their stories. Not only for readers, but to appease whiny writers who like to complain even though they got published.