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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Writer's Tools
So many people have told me over the years that life is essentially easy for writers. After all, they’ve said, a writer can work with the simplest of tools: paper and pen.
I’ve always smiled, because I know that they were identifying the wrong objects as the writer’s tools. I also smiled because these people are completely unaware of the true complexity that that can be involved in the choice of those tools.
Just to cite one example, some writers can really obsess over the choice of a pen. I once worked with a woman who had a fondness for a particular pen. This woman was so picky that she was actually having trouble working with the company-issued (in other words, cheap) pens we had in the office where we worked.
Although I don’t remember why, the office manager gave us permission to go pen shopping one day. This was before Staples and Office Max, so we went downtown to the local stationery supply store.
As my co-worker fondled and tried out a variety of pens, I was awestruck by the sheer number of styles and models available. I was always the kind of guy who can pretty much write with any kind of pen. All during my student days, from junior high to graduate school, I used Bic pens because they were cheap. But I could use anything with a point and an ink supply.
I truly don’t remember what kind of pen my buddy bought that day. I only remember that she was happy and able to work. She had the right pen. I still didn’t understand the big deal.
In the years since my discovery of pen options, I have encountered people who have a deep fondness for a specific keyboard. For some, it goes back to the keyboard on which they learned to type; for others, they discovered a particular keyboard by accident and LOVE it and can no longer do without it.
And I don’t understand these people either. I learned to type on Royal manual typewriters--the big cast iron jobs. I also used a Royal manual portable just because it was affordable. But I’ve also used IBM Selectrics and a whole range of computer keyboards.
So I’ve never really been too choosy about my keyboard. Even now that I’ve discovered the wonderful keyboard on the MacBook Pro, I can still easily use other keyboards. The MacBook Pro keyboard has a great touch and just feels right to me as a touch typist.
But I can write even when I’m away from that keyboard. I can still write productively with a cheap ballpoint pen and a pad of paper.
Because those really aren’t the writer’s tools. At least, they’re not the really important tools. The vital tools for the writer are the imagination, the vocabulary, and the need to express thoughts in words. Without those tools, the right pen and the right keyboard are really useless.
I’ve always smiled, because I know that they were identifying the wrong objects as the writer’s tools. I also smiled because these people are completely unaware of the true complexity that that can be involved in the choice of those tools.
Just to cite one example, some writers can really obsess over the choice of a pen. I once worked with a woman who had a fondness for a particular pen. This woman was so picky that she was actually having trouble working with the company-issued (in other words, cheap) pens we had in the office where we worked.
Although I don’t remember why, the office manager gave us permission to go pen shopping one day. This was before Staples and Office Max, so we went downtown to the local stationery supply store.
As my co-worker fondled and tried out a variety of pens, I was awestruck by the sheer number of styles and models available. I was always the kind of guy who can pretty much write with any kind of pen. All during my student days, from junior high to graduate school, I used Bic pens because they were cheap. But I could use anything with a point and an ink supply.
I truly don’t remember what kind of pen my buddy bought that day. I only remember that she was happy and able to work. She had the right pen. I still didn’t understand the big deal.
In the years since my discovery of pen options, I have encountered people who have a deep fondness for a specific keyboard. For some, it goes back to the keyboard on which they learned to type; for others, they discovered a particular keyboard by accident and LOVE it and can no longer do without it.
And I don’t understand these people either. I learned to type on Royal manual typewriters--the big cast iron jobs. I also used a Royal manual portable just because it was affordable. But I’ve also used IBM Selectrics and a whole range of computer keyboards.
So I’ve never really been too choosy about my keyboard. Even now that I’ve discovered the wonderful keyboard on the MacBook Pro, I can still easily use other keyboards. The MacBook Pro keyboard has a great touch and just feels right to me as a touch typist.
But I can write even when I’m away from that keyboard. I can still write productively with a cheap ballpoint pen and a pad of paper.
Because those really aren’t the writer’s tools. At least, they’re not the really important tools. The vital tools for the writer are the imagination, the vocabulary, and the need to express thoughts in words. Without those tools, the right pen and the right keyboard are really useless.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11
You know what this blog post is about. All any American needs to hear is "9/11" and images of the World Trade Center on fire flashes through the mind. A mix of emotions including anger, frustration, and fear takes over.
It's an iconic date like few in American history. 9/11. It's the day that international terrorism attacked us on our own soil. It's the day that international terrorism violated all of us.
The key is that it was international terrorism. After all, 4/19 doesn't come close to evoking the evoking a sense of violation for most Americans that 9/11 does.
Don't remember 4/19? That's the date that a pair of clean-cut white American males parked a van loaded with fertilizer and fuel oil in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and then detonated it. The resulting explosion killed nearly 650 people, including children who were in the building's daycare center.
I've never completely understood why so many people have apparently forgotten 4/19/95. The idea that American citizens were so angry at the government that they planned and executed such an attack absolutely chills me to my core. Ever since that day, I've wondered how many more clean cut Americans are out there thinking about striking a blow against the government by blowing something up.
Many words will be written and spoken today about 9/11 and the necessity that we never forget that day. I certainly won't. But one of the disturbing lessons that some people have apparently learned is that Muslims are evil--after all, it was a bunch of Muslims who struck us on 9/11. None of those people think Catholics are evil, in spite of the fact that one of the 4/19 bombers was Catholic. Both of those attackers were Army veterans, and nobody thinks veterans are evil.
I sincerely hope that Americans who work to never forget 9/11 also remember that it was members of al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. That's the group that means to harm the United States; al Qaeda, not Muslims.
It's an iconic date like few in American history. 9/11. It's the day that international terrorism attacked us on our own soil. It's the day that international terrorism violated all of us.
The key is that it was international terrorism. After all, 4/19 doesn't come close to evoking the evoking a sense of violation for most Americans that 9/11 does.
Don't remember 4/19? That's the date that a pair of clean-cut white American males parked a van loaded with fertilizer and fuel oil in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and then detonated it. The resulting explosion killed nearly 650 people, including children who were in the building's daycare center.
I've never completely understood why so many people have apparently forgotten 4/19/95. The idea that American citizens were so angry at the government that they planned and executed such an attack absolutely chills me to my core. Ever since that day, I've wondered how many more clean cut Americans are out there thinking about striking a blow against the government by blowing something up.
Many words will be written and spoken today about 9/11 and the necessity that we never forget that day. I certainly won't. But one of the disturbing lessons that some people have apparently learned is that Muslims are evil--after all, it was a bunch of Muslims who struck us on 9/11. None of those people think Catholics are evil, in spite of the fact that one of the 4/19 bombers was Catholic. Both of those attackers were Army veterans, and nobody thinks veterans are evil.
I sincerely hope that Americans who work to never forget 9/11 also remember that it was members of al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. That's the group that means to harm the United States; al Qaeda, not Muslims.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
What the ?
Okay, so that was a bit of an unintended, unscheduled break.
It was a long hot summer in central Illinois and too many things happened that gave me a general feeling of ennui (for those who just love them foreign languages). Plus, after that last post, I would read the headline and fail to come up with an answer.
Time to get moving--and writing--again.
It was a long hot summer in central Illinois and too many things happened that gave me a general feeling of ennui (for those who just love them foreign languages). Plus, after that last post, I would read the headline and fail to come up with an answer.
Time to get moving--and writing--again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
