Category: Survival Kit

I have been emailing back and forth with a former TV journalist, who noticed a trend. I am guessing you will notice the same trend once I bring it up here. Verbs have largely disappeared from news copy. Now, I know many of you will dog me for this and go off on conversational writing. “People speak in phrases.” But do they really? And do they as often as you hear it in news copy?

I am going to make the argument that leaving out key verbs is not done to make copy conversational. It happens for two other reasons more often:

1) To avoid using past or passive tense
2) Because you cannot answer a key part of the fact being presented and are doing a work around.

We delved pretty heavily into the first reason, avoiding using past tense in an article on faking the present.

Some examples sent by this former journalist include: “Today investigators trying to piece together what happened.” and “Hurricane Bob approaching the coast tonight.” Both of these are avoiding “to be.” The reason likely is that the information is not new. The other reason, is to avoid passive tense. We delve into how to get around that in our ultimate writing challenge.

But one thing we haven’t delved into quite as much is the whole, I don’t really know the facts issue. Sadly, this is all too common, especially because journalists are facing huge increases in workload, with little to no support. The former journalist I have been emailing with mentioned that “the most challenging part of writing in active tense was knowing who or what was the “subject” of a subject-verb-object sentence should be. If, for example, a writer knows that a person was accused of something but the writer does not know (and is perhaps too time-pressed or lazy to find out) who did the accusing, writing in active tense is difficult.” So true! And as a journalist who was asked to crank out insane amounts of copy with little to no help, repeatedly, I cannot completely fault writers for this. I understand the “Too time pressed” argument. Leaving these elements out of the story until you get them cleared up isn’t always possible. But there can be a couple of work arounds to help you in this time of fact checking need. Have an assignment editor or manager you trust read over that particular story and ask what they can do to help you fix that fact. Have an anchor do the same. And then tell your EP that the following stories could be written stronger but you don’t have all the facts you need. Yes, share the pain and burden with others. If they blow it off and the copy stays passive, you did all you could. If they just take out the “is”-“ing” combo and dump a verb, at least it wasn’t you. You tried to get all the facts. But keep asking. Hopefully at some point the assignment manager and/or EP will start to see that there is a hole in the system. Too much is getting by with too little information being confirmed. Then, who knows, you might get more support.

Do I think that I will hear more verbs soon? No. The trend is likely here to stay. But I do think that many journalists really want to write things concisely, clearly and knowing they have all the facts. That is why I have to challenge you to demand more. Pick one or two stories a day you call on, to clear up the confusion. It will make you a better writer, better journalist and give you a sense of accomplishment that sometimes is lacking in the daily grind. You cannot fact check all the stories as a producer. There’s not enough time. But you can and should point out the ones you feel could be stronger. After all, your goal is to provide the most information the best way possible. The anchors deserve that. They want to be the most able to explain the information. The newsroom deserves that. It will be noticed for its ability to clearly explain stories the other stations “cheat” on. Most of all, the viewers deserve that. They count on you to have the facts. They make or break your success, so spoil them rotten. Give them more sentences with verbs, in active voice! Don’t take the easy way. Do it the right way. Everyone wins.

Recently on the @survivetvjobs Twitter line, there was a rather intense conversation about the words “apparently,” “reportedly” and “allegedly.” A journalist argued that these words are fine to use instead of attribution. In fact he argued they are necessary to be conversational, so the copy will not be boring and make viewers turn away.

This debate symbolized a big reason why I created “Survive.” It signaled a lack of training, and a lack of checks and balances in newsrooms across the country. Bottom line, no journalist would think that way and we would never see these words in copy, if they clearly were banned in newsrooms. But they are not. I hear each of these words more times than I can count when surveying newscasts, nationwide.

I can and have discussed why these words do not protect you. For this article I will simply say that if you really think about it, you do not need “apparently,” “reportedly” or “allegedly” if you know the facts are true. For facts we do not know yet, or have partial information about, you attribute to whomever was the expert or authority who told you the partial information. These words are most commonly used in crime stories. You’ve heard them a million times. The robber apparently broke into the store around 3 AM. Does it matter exactly when? The robber broke in before dawn. The robber broke in before the store was crowded. See how I got around apparently easily, with facts I knew? Apparently, allegedly and reportedly tell the viewer you are unclear and are guessing. If the unclear facts seem relevant and you do not know all the details, just say so. We don’t know how this fire started yet. But when we find out we will let you know. That is conversational.

And speaking of conversational, do you walk up to a buddy and say, “Sue allegedly dumped Bob last night?” Nope. Or how about this, “The track shack is reportedly setting up another race?” I don’t think so. Sometimes someone will say “I hear Sue is dumping Bob” and the other person says “Apparently.” That I will give you. But what does it add? How would that improve news copy and keep it from being boring?

Let’s just be straight with each other. “Apparently,” “reportedly” and “allegedly” are not put into news copy to be conversational. They are used as crutches to couch that you do not understand something in the story, or just do not have the information. The use of these words says you are guessing. Educated guess or not, it just sounds sloppy. It’s not conversational. Conversational writing is clear. There is no room for a guess.

Just because you can get away with these words in your copy in your newsroom does not mean you should. Be better than that. You deserve it. Your viewers really deserve it. Attribute or say, we don’t know everything about the story yet. But as we learn new facts, we will tell them to you. Viewers like when the story is still ongoing. They like feeling they are the “first to know” about things that are happening right then. You do not have to know all of the story. But what you do tell, you need to be clear on. Dump the catch phrases, and be direct. Your writing will rock and your viewership will too.