It’s a cliché scene in movies set in the Thirties. A reporter dashes to a phone booth—you can tell he’s a reporter because a card with PRESS printed on it is stuck in his hatband—and calls his newspaper. As soon as he’s connected, he barks, “Hello, sweetheart, get me rewrite!”
Rewrite, or the rewrite desk, was essentially a steno pool. The reporter would dictate his story into the phone and the rewrite desk would type it for use in the paper. Then he would close his notebook, hang up the phone, and dash off to the next story or the nearest bar.
Get me rewrite! No matter what I’m writing, at some point or another I hit a spot where I want to grab a phone and get connected to Rewrite. No, I’m not looking to dictate a news story; I’m needing help revising and/or rewriting. Unfortunately, the Rewrite desk is just not there. It’s like the time I mispronounced automatic transmission and it came out as automatic transition, and I realized immediately that having access to automatic transitions would make writing so much easier.
Having a Rewrite desk available by phone would be sweet indeed.
What I know about rewriting I learned the hard way. After a few years on a small weekly newspaper where I rewrote nothing, I got a job in the marketing department of a small company. One of my first assignments was writing something for the CEO; no, I don’t even remember what it was. What I remember is arriving at work the day after I turned it in to find the document on top of my desk.
Scrawled across the top were the words, “I thought we had hired a professional.”
Devastated, I went to my boss for an explanation. After admonishing me for not showing him my work before taking it to the CEO, he began patiently teaching me how to rewrite. He showed me how my document didn’t really say what I thought it said and advised me to concentrate on the message I’m trying to communicate.
He made me rewrite that document. Then he sat with me and marked up that version and made me rewrite it again. He worked with me to polish that document. I wish I could remember what that thing was about. What I do remember was the amount of effort we put into the rewriting. I also remember my boss telling me that I should never show anyone my actual first draft.
That first rewriting lesson was a hard lesson. Rewriting is a skill I’m still struggling to master. If I ever nail it, I’m writing a book on how to do it.
Until then, I’ll keep dreaming of the day I can pick up the phone and bark, “Hello sweetheart, get me rewrite!”
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Juan Williams
Everyone in the world seems to be sounding off on National Public Radio's decision to dump news analyst Juan Williams. So I will too.
And I'll admit my bias right up front: I don't like Juan Williams, and I haven't liked him for some time. Unlike most other NPR staffers, his reports have always been slanted. Even his supposedly straight news reports have always been crafted to support and highlight right-wing positions.
For years, Williams has also had a part-time gig sharing his opinion on FoxNews. As I understand NPR policy--and I don't mean to be an expert here--Williams was a rarity. As far as I know, only Williams and Mara Liasson were allowed to appear regularly on any commercial TV show. Both of them were regulars on FoxNews.
So here's the situation: Juan Williams was getting special treatment from his main job and allowed to appear on commercial TV on a regular basis. Even there, his full-time employer asked him to refrain from saying the kinds of things that he would not be allowed to say on his main job.
Williams disregarded what his full-time employer asked, and he lost his job. For everyone who's up in arms about this, I suggest you look into your employer's policies. You might find out that your employer, like mine and Williams' former employer, has a written policy forbidding you from expressing certain opinions in your role as an employee. In other words, you can't go on TV as an Acme employee and state an opinion that Acme doesn't like.
If you did that once, you'd be disciplined. If you kept doing it, you would reach a point where Acme would fire you. You had, after all, violated policy.
That's what Juan Williams did. NPR did not censor him, they have not violated his right to speak his mind. They merely terminated their business relationship with him. Williams still has the right to speak freely; he no longer has the right to speak on NPR and receive a regular paycheck.
Because of all that, I'm just fine with the NPR decision.
And I'll admit my bias right up front: I don't like Juan Williams, and I haven't liked him for some time. Unlike most other NPR staffers, his reports have always been slanted. Even his supposedly straight news reports have always been crafted to support and highlight right-wing positions.
For years, Williams has also had a part-time gig sharing his opinion on FoxNews. As I understand NPR policy--and I don't mean to be an expert here--Williams was a rarity. As far as I know, only Williams and Mara Liasson were allowed to appear regularly on any commercial TV show. Both of them were regulars on FoxNews.
So here's the situation: Juan Williams was getting special treatment from his main job and allowed to appear on commercial TV on a regular basis. Even there, his full-time employer asked him to refrain from saying the kinds of things that he would not be allowed to say on his main job.
Williams disregarded what his full-time employer asked, and he lost his job. For everyone who's up in arms about this, I suggest you look into your employer's policies. You might find out that your employer, like mine and Williams' former employer, has a written policy forbidding you from expressing certain opinions in your role as an employee. In other words, you can't go on TV as an Acme employee and state an opinion that Acme doesn't like.
If you did that once, you'd be disciplined. If you kept doing it, you would reach a point where Acme would fire you. You had, after all, violated policy.
That's what Juan Williams did. NPR did not censor him, they have not violated his right to speak his mind. They merely terminated their business relationship with him. Williams still has the right to speak freely; he no longer has the right to speak on NPR and receive a regular paycheck.
Because of all that, I'm just fine with the NPR decision.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Questions for Tea Baggers
For the last several months I've been chuckling at the Tea Party crowd. I can't help it--they're so angry and so sincere but usually so ill-informed that they seem positively silly.
Most of the Tea Baggers are absolutely livid over the national debt, but they were never angry before January 2009. Why did they become so angry then? A lot of them say that FoxNews "opened their eyes." And I believe that, because FoxNews acted like the national debt didn't exist between January 2001 and January 2009.
Along with their alarm over the size of the national debt, Tea Baggers are apoplectic about the rate of spending. Again, spending didn't seem to concern them before the current president was sworn in. So they're very concerned about the spending in "Obamacare," even though they didn't raise a fuss in 2003 when a Republican Congress passed Medicare Part D.
Sigh.
Finally, driven in part by their concern that "Obamacare" flies in the face of the United States Constitution, Tea Baggers want us to return to the "constitutional basics." Got it?
All those concerns have the Tea Bag crowd angry. They're really angry. And they want their country back. Okay, but I have some questions for them. I'd like to know specifically what they plan to do with their country once they get it back. After all, I live here too.
So, for any Tea Baggers who care to answer, what exactly do you mean by returning to the basics of the Constitution? Do you want to go back to the 13 original states? Can you name the 13 original states? Hint: Florida wasn't one of them.
Would you favor the repeal of the 17th amendment to the Constitution? That's the one that gave us direct election of U.S. Senators--before that amendment, state legislators picked the Senate's members.
What about the 19th amendment? That's the one that gave women the right to vote. A return to constitutional basics would mean that white land owners are the only Americans who could vote.
You want to cut back on "runaway spending," so what spending would you cut? Social Security? Medicare? Highway and other transportation spending (including federal subsidies for airports?)? Weapons programs that the Pentagon doesn't want, even if they provide jobs in Republican districts?
Would you get rid of federal departments and agencies in your quest to cut spending? Which ones? The Department of Education is a favorite target--what about the Department of Labor? Agriculture? Energy? How about the Environmental Protection Agency?
I'm asking these questions because the Tea Bagger crowd has gotten a pass from the media on all of them. Nobody has pressed for specifics on what the Tea Baggers would actually do if they got control of government. All we've heard is "anger" and "constitution."
Well, I'm angry. And I demand answers. Anyone care to step up?
Most of the Tea Baggers are absolutely livid over the national debt, but they were never angry before January 2009. Why did they become so angry then? A lot of them say that FoxNews "opened their eyes." And I believe that, because FoxNews acted like the national debt didn't exist between January 2001 and January 2009.
Along with their alarm over the size of the national debt, Tea Baggers are apoplectic about the rate of spending. Again, spending didn't seem to concern them before the current president was sworn in. So they're very concerned about the spending in "Obamacare," even though they didn't raise a fuss in 2003 when a Republican Congress passed Medicare Part D.
Sigh.
Finally, driven in part by their concern that "Obamacare" flies in the face of the United States Constitution, Tea Baggers want us to return to the "constitutional basics." Got it?
All those concerns have the Tea Bag crowd angry. They're really angry. And they want their country back. Okay, but I have some questions for them. I'd like to know specifically what they plan to do with their country once they get it back. After all, I live here too.
So, for any Tea Baggers who care to answer, what exactly do you mean by returning to the basics of the Constitution? Do you want to go back to the 13 original states? Can you name the 13 original states? Hint: Florida wasn't one of them.
Would you favor the repeal of the 17th amendment to the Constitution? That's the one that gave us direct election of U.S. Senators--before that amendment, state legislators picked the Senate's members.
What about the 19th amendment? That's the one that gave women the right to vote. A return to constitutional basics would mean that white land owners are the only Americans who could vote.
You want to cut back on "runaway spending," so what spending would you cut? Social Security? Medicare? Highway and other transportation spending (including federal subsidies for airports?)? Weapons programs that the Pentagon doesn't want, even if they provide jobs in Republican districts?
Would you get rid of federal departments and agencies in your quest to cut spending? Which ones? The Department of Education is a favorite target--what about the Department of Labor? Agriculture? Energy? How about the Environmental Protection Agency?
I'm asking these questions because the Tea Bagger crowd has gotten a pass from the media on all of them. Nobody has pressed for specifics on what the Tea Baggers would actually do if they got control of government. All we've heard is "anger" and "constitution."
Well, I'm angry. And I demand answers. Anyone care to step up?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Just a Pound Puppy
Rachel Ray once referred to herself as a “pound puppy.”
Sh was describing her lack of a pedigree in the form of culinary school training. The situation that brought it up was chopping onions in front of a live audience. Seems Rachel chops onions the way your mom does, not the way a trained chef does.
The other day I got to thinking of myself as a pound puppy. Not that I lack a pedigree; I have a Master’s degree, after all. No, it’s because of my fondness for all types of writing.
A coworker and I were discussing an assignment I’d just received. It’s a technical writing assignment, and my coworker mentioned his disdain for that sort of work.
“I can do technical writing,” he said “I’ve done it, I’ve studied it, but I really don’t want to do it at this point in my life.”
We both spend most of our time at work writing various marketing materials, from brochures to websites to whatever else is needed. I really enjoy those writing projects. I also enjoy writing a good user manual or a solid proposal in response to an RFP.
I love writing. It continues to knock me out that I make my living by writing stuff.
So I don’t mind that my body of work lacks any sort of pedigree. I suppose that makes me a pound puppy. And that’s okay with me, as long as I get to keep writing.
Sh was describing her lack of a pedigree in the form of culinary school training. The situation that brought it up was chopping onions in front of a live audience. Seems Rachel chops onions the way your mom does, not the way a trained chef does.
The other day I got to thinking of myself as a pound puppy. Not that I lack a pedigree; I have a Master’s degree, after all. No, it’s because of my fondness for all types of writing.
A coworker and I were discussing an assignment I’d just received. It’s a technical writing assignment, and my coworker mentioned his disdain for that sort of work.
“I can do technical writing,” he said “I’ve done it, I’ve studied it, but I really don’t want to do it at this point in my life.”
We both spend most of our time at work writing various marketing materials, from brochures to websites to whatever else is needed. I really enjoy those writing projects. I also enjoy writing a good user manual or a solid proposal in response to an RFP.
I love writing. It continues to knock me out that I make my living by writing stuff.
So I don’t mind that my body of work lacks any sort of pedigree. I suppose that makes me a pound puppy. And that’s okay with me, as long as I get to keep writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
