Issues with The Beatles

I once read an extremely inspiring article, I think in The New York Times, about words on the “don’t use” list at publications. It made me laugh because I know that at my years at The Post, we’ve acquired many of them.

I can’t find the original article anywhere but I found one to illustrate my point. A medical journalist gives the seven words not to use in medical journalism: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope and victim. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schwitz/The7words.htm)

Every publication or genre of journalism has a similar list of words not to use, and The Post is no exception.

So while we opine about the merits of using the word “cunt,” or whether “fuck” can be used in a quote, there are other minor words that are definite “no’s,” yet still sneak into the newspaper. (By the way, we used “fuck” in a quote a couple weeks ago, justifying that it added something to the story to illustrate the suspended aviation student. See Aviation senior has history of allegations dating from freshman year and tell me if you agree with our decision.)

Basically, a lot of the words that make us cringe and that writers should really learn not to use are regular, run-of-the-mill words that are vague or cliché or overused or just plain spoonfed to us. Every publication has them. They aren’t in the stylebook (although maybe they should be). Last quarter I surveyed The Post editors to find out what words make them cringe. Here are a few nominations:

issues
*This is one of the those catch-all words journalists get thrown a lot. It’s vague. The funny thing is, some beats (an area of coverage an individual journalist is assigned to) have “issues” in the title, such as the “women’s issues” and “student issues” beats.

diversity
*Similar to issues, this is overused and broad. People are always trying to foster “diversity.” I love diversity, don’t get me wrong, but the word makes every Postie cringe. And if people want diversity, give us numbers and tell us what you're actually talking about.

community
*Don’t even get us started on this word. How does one become a member of the community? Is there an initiation? Tom Suddes, a journalism instructor who runs our weekly critique, instilled the belief in us that this word is the devil. It can sometimes be used correctly though when describing a genuine group of people, such as in our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender series: Finding a center: LGBT included in new “comprehensive diversity program”

The Beatles
*Really, the local band sounds like The Beatles? Good for them.

Campus Editor Rick Rouan had some fun ones that come up in campus stories a lot: “vision, residence hall, strategic plan, transparency, multicultural, realignment, implementation, community, likely, could, would, should (the previous words because they all basically say ‘who the heck knows if this is going to happen, so we're just covering our tails’), issues.”

Every editor also has their grammar quirks. Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky hates how people misuse the word “hopefully.” Brittany Kress hates the word “amongst.” (It should be among.) Culture Editor Caitlin Price has what she calls “got-it is:”

"My sophomore high school English teacher, no matter how much I despised her, got me into this mindset of hating the word ‘get.’ … It's such a weak verb — especially for journalism — and you can use so many other colorful words. For example, the simple sentence ‘I got a promotion’ could turn into ‘My boss promoted me.’ The latter sounds so much better than the former."

I hope others will comment and add to my “List of Words Not to Use at The Post.” Or make fun of how nerdy journalists really are.

Column controversy

I was waiting to cash out at CVS when an old friend from journalism class said, “So I know you probably get this a lot …” (I expected the dreaded graduation question) “... But what is up with Ashley Herzog?”

I hear it in line to get cold medicine, at the bars and instant messages from friends just to tell me that they read a column in The Post and it really ticked them off or they have their own in-depth opinion about the issue they want to rattle off over a beer.

The most exciting thing that keeps people going to The Post every day is clear lately: page two. It is the new page six. Who knows what the columnists will say next. From Ashley Herzog on Monday to Alex Jabs on Thursday, the columns have started a discourse on campus that makes even my friends read the student newspaper every day.

Monday columnist Ashley Herzog is pretty famous on campus — love her or hate her — for her Ann Coulter-like conservatism. Her recent take on gun control in response to the Virginia Tech shootings was rather controversial: The Other Side: VT massacre proves uselessness of gun control theories

The most heated response was from a letter writer last Thursday. It starts out with: “Oh, Ashley Herzog (whose name over the past two years has become synonymous to me with soulless, hell-spawned demon).” (YOURTURN: Columnist sells own agenda) Of course we considered not letting that kind of insult get in the paper, but none of the words could be consider unpublishable, and it was a rather generalized insult. What I mean by that is: The letter writer didn’t throw any specific attack on her personal life, so we didn't see a reason not to run it.

To keep the provocative columns coming, Alex Jabs, whose views could be considered to be the polar opposite of Herzog, wrote a column a couple weeks ago that has created a buzz everywhere on campus when she slammed sororities, calling them "ants" that promote bad body images. (Columnist: Not Ready to Make Nice – Sororities counteract fight for positive body image ) The column actually sparked an ad in The Post from greeks on campus defending their grade point average and also garnered more comments on our Web site than ever before and about 25 letters as of Thursday.

The comments below the article are pretty intense. So much so, that Editor Brittany Kress asked me if we should start censoring them — something we've never considered. The way the community posts work is that people can censor them themselves. Basically, readers can vote on the “quality” of the comment. If a comment gets enough negative feedback, the post will disappear. We let most of them stay, because people are entitled to their opinions, and we know that our columnists put themselves out there for criticism. But a few of us voted ourselves on some of the nasty, irrelevant comments, which are no longer on the site.

Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky, who manages the opinon page (Athens360), is pretty adamant about publishing all of the letters we get, and so he’s even held a few editorials to fit them. We’ve also been running extra letters online to accommodate the influx of letters about Herzog and Jabs.

In Jabs’ column this Thursday, she actually responds with a much more subtle tone than her first column: Not ready to make nice: Groups have responsibility to change sickening stereotypes.

Last quarter, we had another controversial column. I originally wanted to post about it, but then saved up my thoughts for a broader column about columnists. Art columnist Gina Beach (a copy editor and writer this quarter) said some controversial things about an African dance ensemble. (Column: Group turns African tradition into Western entertainment).

In the column, Gina says the Biakuye Ensemble, a group mixing American and African instruments, is a byproduct of globalization, lumping two cultures unnecessarily into one. Her descriptions of the performance she saw are pretty critical, describing the performers in a not-so-attractive light.

After discussion among the other executive editors, Gina and professors, The Post came to the conclusion that we would be willing to correct factual inaccuracies, but not take the column off of the Web site, as many have requested we do. The article is still a valid archival piece of work. As discussed in previous posts, we rarely see a reason to take something off of the Web site. It would be more of a cover up than anything. The comments serve as a good way for readers to see the dissent from Gina’s opinion. Comments have served as a good way to give readers all sides of the issues.

No matter what one argues about the merit or execution of Gina’s voice, we determined it was seemingly unmalicious in nature. The debate ended up dying down, as many things do, and letters stopped trickling in. I’m sure someone out there will remember it the next time we need an interview about African dance, however.

One thing I should explain is that the opinion of the columnists is NOT the opinion of The Post. The editorials (which run on the left side of the page) are the opinion of the executive editors (myself, Editor Brittany Kress, Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky and Assistant Managing Editor Matt Burns). The columnists, whether they also work at The Post in other venues or not, have their own opinions. They do go through some editing, but much less so than actual reported articles in the newspaper.

While the principles of journalism still apply to columnists, writing an opinion piece is completely different than an article and should be judged by different standards. The column was based on one person’s view of an event in order to express her larger opinion. Basically, columnists are entitled to their own opinion, and readers are free to agree with her. The “balance” comes from responses from readers. Columns are still held to the same standard of fairness and accuracy, however, and so if something in the column lacks fairness and accuracy, we will fix it.

As Zapotosky, The Post's new editor-elect (New editor in chief named for The Post), commented:

“One of the functions of the opinion page is to provoke dialogue and that’s exactly what these columns have done — although there’s certainly probably flaws in any column ... It’s exciting to see so many people read The Post too."

He doesn’t want them to be simply frivolous thoughts, but to provoke good discourse on campus. I think it’s doing just that, although we have to be prepared for the repercussions as well.

Are we trying just to piss people off? No. Do we get excited for angry letters? Maybe.