Talk:News style

I just reverted some edits to the first 'graph, and I'll explain my motives here. Here's the "original" text which I re-posted to undo the recent edits.

News style is the writing style of short, front-page newspaper stories and of the news bulletins that air on radio and television. The term refers not only to the vocabulary and sentence structure of the prose, but to the order in which news stories present information, the tone they convey and the readers or interests to which they cater. +

Here is the edited version I didn't like:

News style is the concise authoring of newspaper, radio or television stories, favoring brevity and accuracy over embellishment and persuasion. The term refers not only to the vocabulary and sentence structure of prose, but to the order in which news stories present information, the tone they convey and the readers or interests to which they cater.

My issues with it: > "authoring" is word journalists have told me is inherently a violation of "news style." What's wrong with "writing?" Not a biggie, though.

> Lots of stories in papers, on the radio and on television are features or other news forms that aren't "straight news" and don't conform in all ways to news style. So the edits create a misleading assertion and a relatively vague direction to the reader. My wordier original text told people exactly where to look for instances of news style. 168... 16:51, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I liked the content of "brevity and accuracy over embellishment and persuasion," but I think it belongs (and partly already exists) in the "Goals" section that follows on the heels of the first 'graph. So I thought that content was redundant where it was inserted. Some of those words might make a nice addition or substitution to words elsewhere though, I think.168... 16:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm willing to go along with your direction, but I still think the first sentence is confusing or it might be a slight misplaced modifier. On first read, it sounded like "news style" is rewriting stuff for radio and TV. I think what you meant was that it's (short, front-page newspaper stories) or (news bulletins that air on TV or radio). Also, another problem I had is that it is not always front-page stories -- it could be wire copy or short briefs. And "news bulletins" are perhaps too specific for the broadcast description.

To me, there is nothing wrong with stating the "goal" of news style right up front and center. Inverted pyramid and not burying the lede, right? :) The way it is now, it takes quite a long time to get at the essence of news style, and I thought putting it up front would be nicer.

Re: authoring I admit, I don't really like either. However, not all things are written per se in broadcasting. So news style could be ad-lib'ed and never written. But perhaps I'm being too picky. - Fuzheado 04:22, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for being so open to argument. In response to your points, I've tried but can't see how the sentence suggests "rewriting." Still I'll see if I can find some better formulation. I take your point that the sentence doesn't encompass everything that's news style, but I would reply a)it's accurate as stated and b)although it doesn't tell readers everywhere they can go to find news style, it does guide them with precision to several places they're likely to carry in their mental maps, which to me makes the sentence fall only slightly short of everything I wanted it to achieve. I just couldn't come up with a sentence that is simultaneously all-encompassing, practical, succinct and readable. I expect you've been in such a situation a few times yourself.168... 19:24, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks, 168..., for correcting my mistake in assuming that 'lede' was an unintentional misspelling of 'lead'. I should have consulted here first. Chris Roy 22:49, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No problem! "Be bold" and "then retreat" seems to be the way this works. Also, in that particular sentence I think the spelling is a judgment call and not really a question of mistakes. The context suggests that the sentence in quotes is an exclammation shouted across a newsroom, in which case I'd say it should be "lead" so as to conform not only with conventionional spelling but with the convention that this article sets itself--by introducing the concept of the "lead" and offering "lede" only as a secondary spelling. But because "lede" is the primary spelling in newsrooms, at least traditionally, and because "Don't bury the lede" is being presented as a newsroom cliche, and because I imagine a newsroom reporter is as likely to see those words written as to hear them said, I think it's fair to regard "lede" as having been intentional and well thought out by the person who introduced that quote into the article.(Wasn't me)168... 23:19, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. Thanks again—for fixing my (sort of :-) error and for quickly responding here. Chris Roy 23:33, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Reply to my reply: Woops! I posted that last reply, I think, as a non-minor edit.

Hmmm...someone (Fuzheado) just changed it back to 'lead'. I'll leave the decision up to you, 168..., and to Fuzheado, trusting that you folks will resolve this. :-) Chris Roy 23:40, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The rationale is that "lede" is inside baseball or a specialized industry spelling. It's "lede" only to prevent mix ups with the typesetting term "lead" (as in the metal). However, in this article it's more important for the lay-reader to understand what it means, instead of being obsessed with the apparant misspelling. Some folks may not catch the explanation of "lede" earlier in the article.

---

"They use subject-object-verb construction..." Is that right? That sounds kind of odd and overly complex, since English is normally subject-verb-object. Adam Bishop 23:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a mistake you found (so to construct).168... 00:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)