When someone who really knows how to write gets angry, he/she might tend to write it out. Some even send what they wrote, as Jack Shafer found. It probably feels good at the time.
Archive for the ‘Writing’ Category
Burning bridges with flair
Posted in Writing, tagged news of the weird on June 10, 2011| Leave a Comment »
Mysteries within mysteries
Posted in Print media, Writing, tagged engagement, reporting on May 24, 2011| Leave a Comment »

In a nearly 112-years-overdue, story-length correction, James Barron of the New York Times uncovers an impressive amount of detail about numerous errors the Times and others made in accounts of one man’s life, including in his obituary, and the mystery surrounding some of the facts in those accounts. But the real mystery to me is this: Why is this story more engaging than almost anything else I’ve seen in the Times in recent times? Is it merely the lure of a mystery? Or is it the look into the kind of details about a person’s life that we don’t usually get in the typical story — that I would have read all the way through a story about a modern person if it were like this?
The Bristol Herald-Courier has been treading some similar ground recently with stories about unsolved murders (the first was about a nurse’s death in Chilhowie, Va., and just this past weekend there was a three-parter, Outlaws or Inlaws). Murder mysteries have proven appeal, but is it the mystery or the people that draws an audience?
The real story
Posted in Online media, Print media, Writing, tagged engagement on May 15, 2011| Leave a Comment »
(Originally posted July 6, 2010)
A former newspaper publisher with a background as a reporter and editor has a common complaint about a recent story on an emotional meeting he attended: The reporter’s account of the meeting was dry as dirt. He doesn’t link to the story or identify the newspaper, so we can’t tell exactly how much the story failed to capture the meeting, but what he describes is absolutely commonplace, and not just in stories about meetings. Just last week, while thumbing through a stack of various MG papers, I saw a story about a public hearing on a topic that was stirring local residents’ emotions. At least, that was implied. The story did not show that. There was nothing to provide a reader the sense of what it was like to be in that room. Not only that, all the highest quotes in the story came from elected officials. Members of the public, the majority of those who spoke at the hearing, were relegated to the bottom of the story.
One of the important things any story should do is answer the question “What was it like?” (or, if the story is about a person, “What is he/she like?”), and one of the cardinal rules about stories that involve regular people to get the regular people high up and the talking heads (politicians, or anyone likely to talk at length without saying anything, or anything that isn’t predictable) down low, or out entirely. As writing coaches often say, how would you tell the story in person to your mother, or a friend? If you think about your story like that, you’re less likely to fall into a formulaic, official-sounding presentation.