Dateline or no dateline

And I get homicidal when people get on here and pompously proclaim that we're doing it WRONG because we don't do datelines like they do at their paper, in violation of some sacred law of journalism.

Bullshit.

My paper's policy on deadlines is and always has been to use a dateline as an indicator of where an event took place, whether it's a bylined story or a call-in. The only exceptions are if the event took place within the city limits of the town in which we publish or in an unincorporated area surrounding said town.

I like it that way and I'm not going to apologize for it.

 

I understand where they're coming from, albert. A lot of us are raised in journalism to consider Associated Press style as the gospel -- right or wrong.

It's just that, for me, when they change from "coach" and "manager" to "Coach" and "Manager" and back, and then say capitalize titles only for off-field personnel, and then say it's not "4-for-4" but "4 for 4," and then have weekly updates on whether it's "RBI" or "RBIs," that's when I start wondering, are we improving the readers' experience with all this chickenshit?

Because I think it IS still about the reader, and not about us trying to look like idealized journalists for other idealized journalists.

 

I can't really argue with much of what you said and I'll admit my post came mostly out of frustration with some readers. Maybe it should have been on the Why I Drink thread.

But, I think the tricky thing we should shoot for is to write stories that appeal to both the reasonably smart and the idiots. It's tough, but the best people in our business have a way of doing it.

 

Can't agree with you more on that, sir.

 

I could actually get behind a "put datelines on everything a reporter was at, even if it was in town" well before I could get behind a "put datelines on everything" or "put datelines on nothing" mentality.

It IS for the reader, and if a newspaper allows a bylined reporter to put a dateline on a story they were not at, it should be made clear in the story that the reporter wasn't there. I think you'd be surprised that a lot of more educated readers -- and let's not forget, a good number of remaining readers have college degrees and/or have been reading newspapers for decades -- actually DO get the purpose of a dateline.

It's so easy and insulting for journalists to constantly assume lowest common denominator covers all readers, when that's simply not correct. There are many readers who expect nuance and intelligence and style and grammar and all that good stuff.

Just the other day, for instance, I was having a conversation with a non-journalism friend who began bitching to me, unprompted but knowing I'm a sports copy editor, about how illogical "RBIs" is in its construction. The conversation started because he was reading an article on Yahoo! Sports that used the "RBIs" phraseology.

People DO notice these things. Regular, non-journalist, no-training individuals, especially college-educated readers.

-------on another note-----------

That's a good reason and an unfortunate circumstance that I'm aware many are in.

 

Amen to that.

 

Maybe I'm being blinded by the thread, but I read what shockey's saying as the same as what apeman's saying.

If you're there, use a dateline and byline
If you're not there, just a byline

(Or shockey, are you saying that 'staff reports' do not belong on a story with a dateline?)

I think we're got two related ongoing discussion here, and it's not clear in some posts if we're talking dateline/byline or just dateline. There can be a difference.

In the OP, I just can't imagine any qualms about using both.

 

One place I worked actually included the home city as a dateline. Paper circulated in a couple of rural counties, but wasn't THAT huge.

Always thought that was weird. Then I moved on to a paper that had THREE hometowns and never used a dateline on any of them (i thought that would be the perfect place to use it). So as a reporter, you had to specify which city you were talking about. "Members of the PODUNK city council rejected a proposal to .... Meanwhile, the BUMFUCK city council sat on its ass and did nothing at Tuesday's meeting...."

 

Apeman is saying he would put a dateline on any story, even if the reporter wasn't there. Shockey is saying datelines should only be used when a reporter is on scene.

 

It seems to me apeman is saying to put datelines, but not bylines, on stories if the reporter wasn't there.
I read shockey as saying datelines are to be used with bylines to indicate a reporter is at the scene.

Unless shockey is saying that in situation where there is no byline given a dateline should be left off, I don't follow the difference in the two situations.

 

Sometimes, there's simply a right way to do things and a wrong way.

You're doing it the wrong way.

Hard to imagine a daily newspaper datelining stories that aren't staffed, but hey, glad it makes you happy.

 

Then, of course, there's the definition:
date·line /ˈdātˌlīn/ Noun
A line at the head of a dispatch or special article showing the date and place of writing.