The joy of a good dictionary

As an editor, I have owned many dictionaries, from paperback collegiate versions I packed and unpacked countless times through my college years and early 20s to the hardbound unabridged version my brother gave me one year for Christmas that, packed in its own box, probably would have been over the weight limit for a single item of luggage. (That one, too, made it through about six moves before I just couldn’t bear to lug it around anymore.)

Dictionaries can be amazing treasure troves of words and meanings and nuances, leading to a deeper understanding and a confidence that, at any particular moment, you are using the absolutely perfect word. Or they can be, well, dictionaries, that beat down the spirit of the curious reader with their dull, unsatisfying, workman-like definitions.

This article, “You’re Using the Wrong Dictionary” by James Somers, made the rounds back in May, but I recently reread it after forwarding it to a colleague. My two-paragraph description won’t convince you that you owe it to yourself to use a good dictionary, but this post should. And, even better, it tells you how to install a good dictionary on all your devices. I did, and I am so much happier.

Mission statements: Gawker

As I read Gawker’s purpose statement, I found myself thinking, “NOW I get it.” Ideally, a mission should be clear to the reader through the content, but to be fair, I am not a regular Gawker reader. They could very well be doing their jobs in putting forth that mission but I’m too much of a flyby reader to pick it up. The primary intent of a statement like this is to guide the writers to make the right choices in their stories, so that they understand what the site is about and their posts can be the living examples of that mission.

I also think Nick Denton did a nice job of leading with a story to explain why they do what they do (mission statements, purpose statements — they all work better when there’s a creation story to help ground them in a real problem or to just show where the publication started so they can better understand what it has become). Here’s Denton’s story:

Gawker Media begins with a story. I was a newspaper reporter for the Financial Times. It offered unrivalled access to newsmakers in politics and business and some of the smartest colleagues one could find in media. And yet the most compelling anecdotes and opinions that were shared privately — over a drink after deadline — so rarely made it to the page the next morning.

From the foundation ten years ago, Gawker and its sibling titles were intended to give readers a direct connection to writers — and through them a deeper understanding of events and the way the world works. That question asked over a drink by one reporter to another — so what really happened? — is the impetus for all the work we do.

Read the full purpose here.

Great advice for new journalists

One of the best things to come out of the demise of Good magazine is that Ann Friedman has been unleashed on the wider world of editing and publishing. She wrote a great post for Nieman Journalism Lab called “#Realtalk for the j-school grad” that’s filled with great advice not just for journalists starting their career, but any journalist who wants to change jobs or just stay on top of their game. Such as this tidbit:

Learn to write headlines, even if you don’t want to be an editor. Headline writing is about distilling complicated ideas and selling what’s sexy about a piece. This is also called, “being good at Twitter” or “effective pitching.”

And this one, which especially applies to tech journalists — whether aspiring or established:

Be an early adopter. Mess around with new reading apps, new blogging platforms, new social media sites. You don’t have to use all of these things every day, but you need to be familiar with them. One of your main selling points as a newbie journalist is that you’re “hip” to the “Internet sites” and “gadgets” that “the young people” are using today. Deliver on that stereotype. And while you’re at it, learn a lesson that your journalistic elders have largely failed to grasp: Evolution is a lifestyle, not a conference you attend once a year. Keep at it.

If you can’t evolve in the ever-evolving world of journalism, then you’ll limit yourself to the parts of the industry that are dying off.

This American Life has one of the best “how to pitch us” sections ever

Publications, especially good or interesting or popular ones, share a common problem: Most unsolicited story pitches are so far off the mark that many of them make the editorial assistant (since that’s the person who usually judges pitches) wonder why they bother. Then they come across the 1 in 100 that is perfect. That’s why.

The percentage of total pitches that are bad can be reduced, however, if a publication is really clear about what it’s looking for and why. This American Life‘s pitch guidelines are amazing in their level of helpful detail. They clearly want you to pitch them a good story, because that is a win-win for them: They are more likely to get a great story, and they don’t waste their time reading the pitch emails. Also, it makes people happy to place a story.

In the first two grafs, the guidelines tell what they’re looking for in a pitch. But in the next section, they show you successful pitches and say why they were successful:

Here are some real pitches we got that were effective and made it into the show. They all do a few things that helped us say yes to them. First, each of these stories is a story in the most traditional sense: there are characters in some situation, and a conflict. These pitchers are clear about who the characters are and what the conflict is. Also: each of these stories raises some bigger question or issue, some universal thing to think about. That’s also pretty important, and you stand a better chance at getting on the air if you let us know what that is too.

The best writers’ guidelines set clear expectations and also set writers (or audio storytellers) up for success. This American Life‘s guidelines are just perfect. (It’s also worth noting that they’re written in the same conversational, familiar tone in which they expect the pitches to be written and the stories to be told. Nice touch.)

The ethics of photography

Steve Myers at Poynter reports on a recent issue between the AP and a photographer:

The AP has pulled a freelance photographer’s image from its wires because he copied one part of the photo to another in order to cover up his shadow.

I like that he included the AP’s policy. Whether you agree with the AP’s standards or not, the policy couldn’t be clearer, and the photographer clearly violated them.

Give credit where credit is due

This past week, John Gruber called out AllThingsD for their odd practice of not crediting sources by name or even blog name.

Until this is fixed, no more mentions by name of “All Things D” or anyone who writes for them. I’ve corrected this piece from earlier today accordingly.

The correction:

Some Guy With a Goatee on the TouchPad

Hilarious.

Note: Gruber explains more thoroughly here why attribution is important — not just the act of attributing, but also how one attributes information.

Ward off the em dash infestation

The problem with the dash—as you may have noticed!—is that it discourages truly efficient writing.

— One of many of Noreen Malone’s excellent points in “The Case–Please Hear Me Out–Against the Em Dash” from Slate.

Em dashes do seem to tap out the rhythm of modern prose in halting, jarring bits. I like the well-placed em dash, but I will concede that many dashes could be avoided with better structured sentences. Though writing good sentences is becoming a lost art.

“Better Yet, Don’t Write That Novel” | Annals of Bad Writing

My friend Ray — who writes an awesome blog about beer, writing, and other things of importance — sent me the link to Laura Miller’s anti-NaNoWriMo essay, “Better Yet, Don’t Write That Novel.” It inspired me to start a new department here: the annals of bad writing.

This general topic has been on my mind for a while. I get angry — yes, angry — when I see bad writing from people who are paid to write. Why? Because the media industry is a mess right now. Smart people are losing jobs or are grossly underpaid, getting the same word rate they received ten years ago. Though many big media executives talk about how “content is king,” they are comically unable to turn a modicum of profit in this time of pervasive content consumption. I mean, come on — the Wired iPad app? Did the editors and Adobe staffers who worked on it actually believe that this mediocre app was actually groundbreaking? Have they drunk that much of their own Kool-Aid.

I can’t change the industry, but I can call out some of the poorly written articles.

Title: “Better Yet, Don’t Write That Novel”
Author: Laura Miller, senior writer and cofounder, Salon.com
Publication:
Salon.com
Word Count: 1300 words

Ray described Miller as sounding like “an elitist Chicken Little” in this piece. I would add that her writing is poor, with her arguments ping-ponging wildly: Rough drafts are good! Rough drafts are bad! Writers are narcissists! I’m a writer! The publishing industry is just trying to milk writers for money! Support the publishing industry by reading a novel a month! Consumption is more laudable than creation! By the way, you can buy and read MY book, a reader’s guide to other books!

Buried beneath what feels like sour-grapes kvetching (in case you missed it in her bio, she’s written two books — have you bought them?) is a good point: you’re a better writer if you also read. But did she have to take 1300 words to not even get to that point? It sounds like she does share something in common with many NaNoWriMo writers — she, too, could use a better editor before she subjected others to her writing. This could have been a good 500-word piece, if she actually stated her thesis somewhere.