Spunk can't replace accuracy and details

I’m more than a little disturbed by election coverage — or any coverage for that matter — that has plenty of the edge and too few details.

Sure, newspapers’ business model is facing a scary reality of falling profits.

Sure, we see layoffs right and left and are all aware our jobs could be the next on the chopping block.

Sure, this marathon election season is still months from over, and we struggle to keep coverage sounding fresh and vibrant.

But do we really think edgy writing that leaves readers scratching their heads is a step forward? Call me old-fashioned, but I want news that’s accurate and provides me details, not just snarky comments from writers.

 

This story from the AP is what aroused my frustrations.

It says John McCain campaigned not too far from Mitt Romney’s summer home in New Hampshire.

So how many miles away is it? Who knows. The article never says.

The article strays from the inverted pyramid lede construction and bucks trends when it comes to sentence construction. What I wish it had instead addressed more directly, though, were the reader’s lingering questions.

 

Copy editors sometimes get the bad reputation of being journalistic party poopers, if you will. We’re the ones who supposedly want to suck the voice right out of that writer’s glowing article, the ones who are uptight and won’t let anyone have any fun with their articles.

Not true.

In fact, I enjoy a lively story with interesting sentence constructions that keep me on my toes. But if it lacks accuracy and leaves questions unanswered, then yes, I will step in to add context and details.

Why? Because that’s my job, and it’s one for which I won’t apologize.

It doesn’t make me a mean editor “out to get” reporters whose writing has an edge to it; it makes me someone who wants to look out for reporters by asking them the same questions readers would be wondering.

 

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.