Writing for newspapers, TV and blogs
Michael Rosenblum writes about the stiff language news anchors use on television.
It is weird, alienating ... creepy.
That is how we talk to our audiences all the time.
But not how we talk to our wives, our husbands, or friends and family.
Doug Fisher of Common Sense Journalism notes that print has similar issues.
Yep.
The difference in our writing on blogs and in the paper is striking. In my case, I write on the blog as if I am having a conversation with an acquaintance, although I doubt I actually know many of you personally. I feel more open and write more like I speak. I am having a conversation. You can talk back. Thanks to links I don't have to explain how a watch is made when you only want to know what time it is. I write as much or as little as I like without worrying about filling a certain sized newshole. The whole process seems casual and comfortable, mostly. I said mostly.
My newspaper column, though, is more formal and, to use Doug's word, stiff. Oddly, I don't feel that I am writing for acquaintances even though I know much more about newspaper readers than Web readers. (I have reams of readership surveys.) It may just be my imagination but newspaper writing permits platitudes and pomposity that Webizens wouldn't tolerate without challenge. (In my case, I think that writing only once a week encourages that tone.) It also seems so much easier to upset newspaper readers -- perhaps because there are so many more of them -- but equally, I think, because the paper is often such an impersonal institution. With blogs, the mere fact that anyone can leave a comment breaks the impersonal wall down.
We've talked often about transferring the writing style of the blog to the newspaper. Some do it better than others. We're not there yet, but I am pretty sure that we would have told the story of Fluffy in the newspaper the same way as we would tell a wife, husband or friend.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I'd suggest that the subject matter and the type of piece should dictate the style, not the medium. Sometimes a "stiff" style is simply better, when stepping readers through a complicated subject, for example. At other times, a more conversational tone may make the subject more accessible -- whether broadcast or print.
BTW, "newshole?" I'm adding that one to my vocabulary, but not the way you used it, more in line with my girlfriend's recent creation of "classhole:" one who is a jerk towards people of a different class.
Posted on May 7, 2007 7:30 PM
In my case, I write on the blog as if I am having a conversation with an acquaintance, although I doubt I actually know many of you personally. I feel more open and write more like I speak. I am having a conversation. You can talk back.* Head Dog
So one notices John! There has been several times that you have carry on conversations with yourself. Is this something that goes with the internet in the era of the blogs or simply a hidden trait that a therapist should notice?
Posted on May 9, 2007 12:39 PM
Funny, I spend lots of time telling my high school and college age daughters to stop writing so conversationally and tighten up their writing with more carefully chosen words. Stiffer? Yes. More impactful? Definitely. Since younger people read so much less from other periods and countries, they tend to think casual, rambling writing is good writing. Material aimed at them is written that way. Maybe that will be the standard in 10 years--but the writing lacks power.
Posted on May 10, 2007 1:22 PM