Macro Editing: Editing Information

Let's talk first about some general strategies for editing stories. To some extent, your approach probably will vary depending on whether you're dealing with a wire story or a local story.

For wire stories, here are some suggested steps:

1) Read the story once all the way through without touching it.

Some editors advise that you should literally sit on your hands during this first read. You may not want to go to such extremes, but you do want to give the story a hands-off first read.

2) Check how much space the story is designed to fill. Then do a rough chop to fit that space.

It's a good idea to leave yourself three or four extra inches at this stage, or roughly four to six paragraphs. It's easier to make additional cuts than to retrieve something you've already taken out.

3) Read the story again with a critical eye.

* Do you see any major holes or problems?

* Does the story raise significant questions that are left unanswered?
* Is there enough context for your readers to understand the importance of the story or its value to them?

This is your "macro edit" for wire copy. If you notice problems, it's up to you to solve them as best you can, using available reference materials.

(This is different from dealing with macro problems in local copy, which are best resolved in consultation with the writer.)

4) Now trim the story to match the desired length as closely as possible -- without adding any new questions.

At this point, you're shaping the story to fit both your available space and your (and your readers') contextual needs.

Hint: Be especially careful if you move text around or if you cut from the middle of a story because, say, you love the kicker quote at the end (or are using it as a pull-quote).

You want to be sure not to introduce an error, of course. But more common is to move something up above the spot where it was first referred to in the original. (That is, what originally was a second reference to a person or event becomes the new first reference.) Be sure to fix the text so you don't perplex your reader.

5) Micro-edit the wire story.

It's best to do this toward the end of the process, especially as a relatively new editor who may still have to wrestle with the "mechanics" of grammar and punctuation. Otherwise, you'll have spent time agonizing over material that no one will ever see (at least in your publication).

6) Write the headline(s) and cutline(s).

Then give everything a final quick read to make sure it all makes sense and hangs together. And off it goes for the world to see!

With wire copy, you're generally on your own -- the wire service reporter isn't there to work with you, so you have to make the story as good as you can without the writer's input.

With local copy, on the other hand, you should work with the writer as much as possible when you think a story needs something more than routine "micro editing" changes for punctuation or grammar. Developing good working relationships with your writers is vital.

Good stories are everywhere, all around us, all the time. They're in overheard conversations, in chats with mom, in things we notice on our daily commutes, in items we see in other media ... everywhere.

Editors are always curious about the world. That curiosity drives them to be on the lookout for possible stories, as well as for approaches to covering those stories (local angles, sources and more).

* One basic thing editors (and reporters or PR writers) do is maintain a "tickler file."

This is a computer file or folder with items sorted by date. The goal is to be sure someone is covering important events.

(PR people, of course, are often the ones providing the material that goes into the tickler file -- items that they hope editors will want to get someone to cover.)

* Communicating ideas effectively to writers is as important as having the ideas in the first place. As editors, you should be as specific as you can -- give the writer information up front to help him or her pursue the story.

This doesn't mean editors should dictate exactly how the story will turn out. Indeed, writers may turn up totally different (often better) angles when they do their reporting.

But it does mean the editor has offered a viable starting point, something specific for the writer to build on. This is especially helpful if you're working with inexperienced (maybe anxious, insecure and scared) writers, most of whom will be grateful (even if they are too cool to show it) for the guidance.

Too vague:
"Hey, I hear something is up over in the admissions office. Go see what you can find out."

Better:
"Hey, I hear the University has gotten four times more applications for fall 2006 admission than anyone expected. Go see if you can find out what that means for anticipated class sizes in Gen Ed courses next fall -- is anyone thinking about how we might deal with so many freshmen?"

So now you've pointed the writer in a direction that you think will produce a good story, and she has come back with ... something.

It's not so hot. Now what?

In macro editing local copy, you're looking for "bigger picture" issues. One good approach is to develop a system that can be applied any story. For instance, you might want to create a short checklist, with such items as:

* Completeness and clarity: What's missing from this story? Does it flow logically and smoothly? Does anything here confuse me?

* Accuracy: Does anything sound flaky? Does anything seem to contradict my memory or my common sense?

* Relevance: Is this story going to be meaningful to my readers?

If not, what can we do to make it more meaningful? (For instance, might we add a local angle or provide background details?) Is there a clear "rat's ass graf" that explains why the reader should care about this story?
* Sourcing: Are there enough sources to fairly, adequately and appropriately represent the various sides to this story? Are the people quoted the ones who might be reasonably expected to be authoritative on this issue?
* Potential legal and ethical problems, such as those we talked about before break, including issues related to accuracy and fairness.

Here is a nice set of specific questions to ask about any story, which the book's authors label "The Five Ws (and an H) for Editors."

Note that many of these are questions of different sorts than the ones reporters typically address in answering "who," "what," "when," "where," "why" and "how."

Who: Who said so? Who else would know about this? Who is affected by this? Who cares?

Working With Words suggests that for most hard-news stories, the "who" typically is most important and should come first in the story.

What: What is the news here? What impact will it have on citizens? What's the point? What background does the public need to understand it? What else will citizens want to know?

WWW says the "what" typically is the second-most important thing in the story and generally belongs in the lead with the "who." In some cases (for instance, in coverage of speeches or meetings), the "what" might be the dominant angle.

When: When did these people say or do these things? When will the impact be felt? When will it be time for a follow-up story?

Where: Where is the focus of this story? Where is the information that supports the lead? Where did this story come from? Where is it going? Where else is something like this happening?

Why: Why are we writing about this? Why should the public care? Why should they believe these sources?

How: How do I know this is accurate? How can the information be confirmed? How can the other sides be included for balance and fairness?

Sourcing can be a particular challenge for writers. Editors can help by talking with the writer about the following questions, which can be applied to almost any story:

Where did this story come from?

* Whose idea was this?
*  What system is in place now?
*  Why is change needed? (Many news stories involve change ... or novelty.)
*  What steps led to the change?
*  Are there any rules or laws on this subject? Who enforces those rules?

Who knows about this?

* Whose idea was this again? Who else is for it, and who is against it? Why?
*  Who is an expert on this subject?
* In addition to individuals, what groups might be involved?
* Is it clear what we're talking about here?

Who is affected by this?

* From what points of view should we look at this issue?
* What money is involved? Who will pay? Who will profit?
*  What are the short-term effects? The long-term effects?
*  Where else is this happening?

Want a little practice?

Editors must be lifelong skeptics. (Not cynics ... skeptics.)

As the final gatekeeper, you are the reader's representative on any story. As the authors of The Editorial Eye put it, "Your job as an editor is simply to ask the public's questions."

They suggest that editors think through stories:

* "Forward": What is the next step in the process described in the story, and what are the likely short- and long-term effects?

* "Backward": All stories have roots in the past -- what are those roots, and how much do readers need to know about them now?

* "Outward": How does this story apply beyond the immediate event, issue or geographic area?

Editors must be even greater skeptics than reporters. In particular, editors should be on the alert for potential motives that sources might have for saying what they're saying now and in this way.

As Ernest Hemingway (who once worked as a newspaper reporter in Kansas City) said, journalists need a built-in, shockproof shit detector. Try yours:

WHAT PROF SAYS WHAT PROF MEANS
You'll be using one of the leading texts in this field. I used it as a grad student.
Today, we are going to discuss a most important topic. Today, we are going to discuss my dissertation.
The gist of what the author is saying is what's most important. I don't understand the details either.
Various authorities agree that ... My guess is that ...
According to my sources ... According to the guy who taught this class last year...
The answer to your question is beyond the scope of this class. I don't know.
You'll have to see me during my office hours for a thorough answer to your question. I don't know.

You must recognize that there are several disparate points of view regarding your question.

 I really don't know.

We can continue this discussion outside of class.

1) I'm tired of this -- let's quit.
2) You're winning the argument -- let's quit.
Editing meaning: Focus, leads and organization