NYT, Bob Baker and writing better

Rather disappointing that there isn't more talk on this thread ... question to think about: How many times do you catch yourself overwriting things? I know it happens to me sometimes. I'll get caught in a moment and try to weave prose rather than get to the meat of what I'm talking about. Where's the line between a creative lede and a completely overwritten one?

 

I've been doing the same thing over the past couple of days. It's always good to go back and see how something can be improved, but I seldom do that. These links served as a good reminder that I need to review my work more often to keep from slipping into lazy writing.

 

Maestro, I think what theyre saying is that instead of writing about an issue and 10 families, narrow the focus to one family so that the feature is more personal. ... It's an approach I agree with. I think it's easier for readers to follow one, two or three people in a story. But it's an editor cliche to get a lot of "voices" in the story, therefore not many newspapers do this.

 

Really interesting read. I printed it up and I'll keep the 10 printed pages on file. I don't agree with every word, but it's nice to see there are people who think about and discuss these kinds of things. Say what you want about the NY Times, but at least they put thought into writing and reporting there.

I particularly liked the part about the self-selecting readership. It was fairly pompous, of course. But perhaps more newspapers need to take that approach. Play to our strengths, not to our deficiencies.

Of course, that's easier said than done. The New York Times occupies a very unique place in the marketplace. Trying to copy their model to the letter would be like saying Tulane should win at football the same way Notre Dame does.