Helping reporters make deadline My boss and I manage a group of reporters who have a little trouble making deadline. How much trouble? The team is averaging less than 30% deadline compliance -- and this is a team that almost never has to file a deadline story (our section prints in advance). Moreover, about half of the stories that are late come in WAY late, by which I mean 24 hours or more late. We have impressed upon them the need for deadline compliance, explaining how that lateness hampers the ability of everyone downstream, from me as line editor to the guy who's supposed to get the papers delivered at 5:30 a.m., to do their jobs well. We've drawn a direct connection between their deadline compliance and their complaint that we don't publish enough narrative writing. We've held stories that came in late. We've even reduced some budgeted raises because of it. Nothing works for more than a couple of weeks. Anyone got any other suggestions? Thanks in advance,
How did this situation get so far out of control? Does the paper have a history of allowing this? I would start by breaking down why they are missing deadline? Is it to write more or report more? IF it is reporting, the editor can structure the reporting for the reporter, one by one. I would draw an outline for them showing the time each reporting task takes. If it is writing, perhaps they need to be moved back to pyramid structure until they make their deadline. I know that sounds harsh but if stories aren't being done on time, the paper is really getting screwed, in my view. You need to find an
ally, a reporter who thinks differently from the rest. If there is one
person making deadline, I would use that person to motivate all the rest.
Positive feedback when deadline is made is needed, although a bit strange
they are this far behind. This sounds like a power struggle as much as a skill issue. If it's indeed a power struggle, you need to deal with the underlying issue or issues, which it appears as if you're attempting to do. You need to make the point that making deadline is an issue of basic journalistic competence. Like accuracy, it's not an optional matter or something where pretty good is acceptable. You make deadline and you get it right or you aren't a competent reporter. As for the skill issue, try my handout on deadline writing and see if it includes any tips you haven't tried already: http://www.notrain-nogain.com/Train/Res/WriteARC/deadline2.asp Laurie Hertzel also posted a recent piece on deadline issues: http://www.notrain-nogain.com/Train/Res/Write/conq.asp The tips I believe
are most helpful are to write as you report and not to sweat the lede.
If reporters start writing earlier, they can make deadline easier and
with better stories. On deadline, you can't afford to stare at the blank
screen, as far too many reporters do when they're waiting for the lede
to write itself. Write a simple declarative sentence, and get on to the
second paragraph. The lede may occur to you halfway through the story.
So go back up and fix the lede and at least your story is half written.
I underline this in the workshop with an exercise that might help if you
perceive this to be the problem. I show a scene from a movie, instructing
the participants to take notes as if covering the event. Then I give them
three minutes to write the top of the story, insisting that they write
without stopping. Then I ask everyone to read their ledes. Some are better
than others, but everyone writes a competent lede, even without sweating
over it for several minutes. Get the story done and then if you have time
left, you can go back and sweat over making it better. Have you tried putting
the problem back on them and asking them for a solution? If making deadline
is the standard, then ask them what they're going to change in their work
schedule or writing and reporting processes to see that they meet that
standard. Brainstorm some ideas with them and look especially for ideas
that work for their particular work style. Every reporter and writer thrives
on the idea that they work a little differently from others. We all like
to think we're unique. Then ask them when and how they'll implement the
ideas that work the best for them. This is their problem and they need
to solve it. It's disrespectful to every other professional along the
line. They may be good, but so are the people who come after them in the
chain. Maybe a reminder that because other people come later in the chain
of work, doesn't mean that they're lower on the chain. The chain of work
in a newsroom typically is horizontal, not vertical. Knowing WHEN folks bust deadline is useful. Is it with breaking news? Might be a problem with doing too much reporting and not leaving sufficient time for writing. Is it with enterprise? Not all enterprise is created equal and some stories simply require more time than others. Editors need to realize that emerging trend stories, for instance, can take more time and digging than the quicker "here's an interesting person/place/activity" story that can be done in a day or two. It was quite useful
to hear Lisa Pollak say (a couple of weeks ago at the Boston narrative
writing conference) that having a deadline is HELPFUL. Even when it's
an emerging trend story and she doesn't have a primary source yet. An editor at the recent APME convention noted that newspapers define themselves not just by their best work, but also by the worst work they allow to be published. The same goes for the performance of staffers. Standards of any kind are communicated through actions. The situation Lex
describes above sounds like the reporters have gotten away with busting
deadlines so much it is the norm. The challenge now is to permanently
change that perception. How depends on the practices and culture of your
newsroom. The steps you've already taken don't seem to have done the job.
It might take a termination, new assignment or some other drastic measure
relative to your newsroom to make the point. As hard as these steps can
be, keep in mind you are enforcing a standard for everyone. Lex, I'm old enough to remember Greta Tilley, a great features and projects writer at your paper in the 1980s. She's generally remembered as a beloved figure: talented, quirky, and incredibly likeable. She was the first person to win two ASNE writing awards. So I got a chance to interview her twice. My memory is that she was almost always late with her stuff. She had those perfectionist qualities that made her a procrastinator, and her editors had to work hard to persuade her the stuff was good enough to turn in. Which leads me to
this observation masked as a question: Are editors willing to tolerate
deadline breakers who hand in great stuff? And what's missing, I think,
from your description of your deadline breakers is the quality of the
final work. And to the group: does that matter? Ackk! While your designated star is busy blowing deadlines, she is making life hell for others up and down the line: the assistant city editor, the layout editor, the copy editor, slot and whatever is left of the production department at newspapers that haven't redesignated their copy desks as "production desks." And that means they can't do their job, all because one person wants to tweak, play with her copy just a little more so that she looks perfect. As many newspapers add regional tabs, special sections, extra projects and added penalties for late closings, failure to deliver the newspaper by a certain time--people have to cooperate. That means reporters, even great ones. I suspect many papers allow certain folks to file a little late, knowing someone--read, the copy desk in many cases or the lone assistant city editor left to clean up at night--will make up for it. In theory, there's some built-in time, though it vanishes as each person along the chain adds more delay. But as I recall the original question, there was a little group of reporters blowing deadlines, regularly. This should not be encouraged, regardless of the quality. If the designated
star can't make her designated deadline because she wants to take another
run at the story, set the deadline earlier. To throw in on the group question -- we do make allowances for our top writers, some of whom have been, and are, deadline-blowers. But allowances are allowed for larger projects and pieces we don't need to get on the newswire as quickly as possible. There just can't be much wriggle room on the daily, breaking stories because we're always on deadline with those to beat the competition and because so many IDG publications and Web sites are depending on us. We've tried the earlier-deadline approach for bigger pieces, but I've found it doesn't work for the long term because eventually the writers figure out there is room built in. Otherwise, I'm bothered by the message it sends when we let stars blow deadlines. At a bigger place it might not be so noticeable, but in a small operation like ours, it is noticeable. Some of our reporters are in their first jobs and I don't like them to see colleagues, especially highly regarded veterans, blow deadlines. Fortunately, our better writers are all good about meeting deadlines save for rare instances, and everyone understands that if we miss deadlines . One of our deadline-blowing
stars left IDG News Service for a major newspaper a few years ago and
discovered the effect that blown deadlines have when the press has to
start running at a certain time. I wonder if our allowing him latitude
made him think he could get away with that at other places and wound up
hurting him as he tried to move along in his career. He didn't go to that
newspaper as a star and it was a rude awakening for him when he got there. Roy, Sure, the quality matters. So does the deadline. On a deadline story, the reporter has failed if she turns in a well-crafted story so late that she misses the desired edition, causes a late press start or forces sloppy editing, a rushed headline or a bad trim because designers had to shoehorn the story into a page they had designed without knowing how long the story was (and you know whom the reporter blames for that bad trim). We really need to differentiate here between deadlines for breaking news and deadlines for enterprise stories. Busting deadlines for enterprise stories causes different problems and requires different solutions. I believe in coddling writers, especially good ones. But you coddle them by setting generous deadlines or letting them set their own deadlines or giving them plum assignments, not by ignoring when they bust deadlines. The best reporters became the best by meeting and mastering the many challenges that writing presents. You don't accept deadline-busting as a quirk of a wonderfully creative person. You challenge that person to get even better and make deadline. You can embrace and reward the perfectionism while working to correct the procrastination. You say that streak of perfectionism stamped out the passive verbs and cliches in your writing and the shallow questions in your interviewing; now turn your perfectionism loose on your procrastination. Sometimes you just
need to communicate better about legitimate reasons to bust a deadline.
I wrote a story a couple weeks ago about a visit to Mt. Rushmore by some
Afghan women. I could tell about mid-afternoon that they were going to
make it to the mountain either right on or actually after our bulldog
edition deadline. So I called and warned the desk. As they were making
other stops on their way, I got in their van and interviewed some of the
women about their feelings about the Taliban's destruction of the ancient
Buddha statues carved out of a cliff at Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Then I wrote
most of the story in our car as the photographer drove the last leg. As
we finally were approaching Rushmore, right on deadline, I called the
desk and filled the editor in on the situation and asked what his drop-dead
deadline for the bulldog was. I spent just a few minutes with the women
to get their initial reactions, then found a place at the park office
where I could quickly put a top on what I'd already written and file.
The photographer and I both technically filed after deadline, but we respected
the deadline and coordinated with the desk. And lots of editors worked
hard to get both the story and picture into the bulldog. The communication
made the difference between collaborating to get the story and photo in
and still start the press on time and missing that edition because we'd
filed late. I appreciate Steve's
suggestions on how to handle deadline busters. But please let me play
the devil's advocate a bit longer. When we talk about "breaking"
stories, or "bulldog" editions, aren't we using a lingo that
describes a world that barely exists anymore? I can't remember the last
time I heard anyone use the word "scoop," I'm sorry to say.
So, if a great story comes in late, wouldn't it be better to hold it a
day? Doesn't the current media world make getting it in "well-done"
mean so much more than getting it in first? It may be different for cities
like New York and Toronto. But, really, what's the rush? I'm reading more
into this discussion about the requirements of our systems and routines,
rather than what benefits the readers. Please, I don't want to misrepresent
myself here. On books or projects, I prefer to beat my deadline by a month.
Just whack the deadline busters upside the head, but don't make a fetish
out of what is essentially an arbitrary countdown. Just FYI to that....we
compete head-to-head with the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Scoops are very
important to us. I think both Roy and Steve make excellent points. I would simply say that in our case, we're neither fish nor fowl -- that is to say, neither right-on-presstime live stories nor days- or weeks-in-the-making enterprise projects. I think we're closer to the former, but with early deadlines. And if it were just one person -- whether the same person or different people -- blowing deadline so badly and so often, it wouldn't be such a huge issue for us. But it's everyone, damn near all the time. One of the people who responded, in listing some of the downstream consequences of this problem, pointed out that (line) editors don't get to do their best work in this situation. Amen. Most days, on most stories, what I do is much closer to triage than editing. Now, understand, I'm quite good at triage and perfectly able and willing to perform it when the situation demands it. But when it's almost all the editing I ever get to do, and I have to do it on so many stories on which it's not appropriate, I find myself getting both bored and disheartened. (And if I personally weren't closing the deadline gap so quickly, I likely also would find myself being attacked by my section's page designers, who are among the most talented at the paper and relish the freedom to show off that our section gives them when copy's in on time.) One person who responded
said this: Pretty much any reporter who WANTS to make deadline consistently
can do it. And that, I fear, is where I find myself. Breaking stories,
our bulldog edition and, yes, even scoops, are really important in the
world I live and work in. And I sensed that they were important in most
of the newsrooms where I've coached. We compete with broadcast outlets
and their Web sites on local stories and with the Lincoln and Des Moines
papers on regional coverage. Our bulldog edition may be a rarity, but
the thousands of readers who buy it prefer to read Saturday's news on
Sunday rather than Monday, even if it complicates my Saturday. And the
"systems and routines" Roy mentions are the necessary plans
for giving readers a strong total package day after endless day. Bottom
line: Reporters who consistently don't make deadline are selfish. The
great ones will get away with it, as they get away with a lot. But they're
still selfish. Yep, they're selfish. But more than that, they're scared. Scratch a writer consistently blowing deadlines and I'll wager you'll find a perfectionist. As one who blew, busted, stretched, ignored, begged for pity from deadlines for years, I know that most of the time it was because I was convinced that my story wasn't good enough and that only one thing--more time--was the solution. For decades, I blew deadlines, refused to let go of manuscripts, and wasted countless hours and reams of paper over drafts that were never good enough. Yep, I was selfish but more than that I was stupid. Only now, have I begun to learn to tell myself, "It's good enough," to hit the send button in time for a rewrite. What writers who blow deadlines miss out on, of course, is the chance to get another pair of eyes and another brain working on their story. The writing process is shrouded in myth and one with the deepest tentacles says, "A story has to be perfect before it's turned in." Journalism is by and large a first-draft culture and our dirty little secret is that once the bell rings and we've run spellcheck, satisfied ourselves we won't be sued for libel (or at least crossed our fingers) any and all shit gets in the paper. Until reporters and
editors recognize that revision is the way we make our work clearer, more
accurate and compelling and create workflow systems that reflect that
truth, reporters will blow deadlines, editors will gnash their teeth and
do triage in the last desperate moments before the presses roll. To a
perfectionist, "good enough" sounds more like an epithet. But
lowering our standards early on in the process, building in time for useful
response from a first reader aka editor and revision by the writer is
our only hope of making deadlines and producing good stories. Both are
possible. Well said! The only deadlines I've ever blown were with big projects and that was because I just can't make myself write as the reporting goes along (and still really can't do that as much as I'd like) and then when I do write it's just never good enough. But Lex obviously has quite the problem to deal with there, though lots of good suggestions already from this list for dealing with it. We still market in
scoops around here, by the way. The tech trade press thrives on kicking
each other's butts with scoops. We've been having a discussion about errors and how to track them on the ACES discussion board (http://www.topica.com/lists/ACEStalk/read). In light of the comments
about reporters trying to strive for perfection, and perhaps giving up
their stories earlier and letting the chips fall where they may, I give
you a note that was posted about one paper's experience in catching errors.
Please note that this was written in response to a query about the wisdom
or difficulties in trying to track mistakes. I did something like this a couple of years ago. Without telling anyone in advance, I picked a typical day's paper and looked at all the stories for our A and B sections (news) for three editions. I looked for matters of fact, including omissions; grammar, spelling and punctuation, and consistency and our style. I did not count other instances where copy editors tried to make the material clearer, tighter, smoother, fairer, more tasteful or better in any other way. Only what appeared necessary made up this accounting. The findings: 66 factual corrections; 186 grammatical fixes; 92 changes for style and consistency. Only changes marked in the stories were counted. Many copy editors here make routine punctuation and capitalization corrections without marking them, so the actual total was higher. I reported this to the paper's top editors, who were receptive, surprised and dismayed. I noted that when 350 or so corrections have to be made in one night by one desk, something is bound to end up wrong in the paper. Those who send material to the copy desk, I suggested, could look to see what was changed, learn from it and ask a copy desk leader about any change they didn't understand or see the need for. Certainly the number of copy-desk fixes will never be zero, I noted, but a reduction would lead to more time for better headlines and interaction between copy editors and others -- and, most important, greater credibility with our readers. Reaction? Some writers and editors did become more conscientious. No particular program of change began. Once in a great while someone brings up that I found all these mistakes. It's time for me to do it again. Suggestions for you? Before the checklist is made up, try several stories, different kinds, to see what sorts of mistakes you're finding. Ask the executive editor if that's indeed what he's looking for. And ask, in a helpful way, what the results might be after you've done your study. Then make the checklist as applicable and quick to use as possible. On the face of it,
this looks like an excellent opportunity to let the facts speak for the
importance of your job. I had to respond to
Roy Peter Clark's comments. Deadlines matter in the ultra-competitive
Philadelphia metro market because being first, being right and being good
all matter to us. We compete with daily and weekly newspapers, news radio,
cable and regular TV news. Holding breaking stories is not an option,
so neither is busting deadlines. That said, we put as many reporters and
editors as we need on breaking stories, work with the reporters throughout
the day, set realistic deadlines and agree on a key editor to honcho everything
through. As far as enterprise goes, my policy is that it shouldn't be
edited on deadline. Of course, we've all done it, but it's not fair to
the reporter, the editor or ultimately, the reader. I could go on, but
I'm on deadline. Newspapers are unusual businesses in that they are at the intersection of manufacturing and creativity. Deadlines are traffic lights that create order and prevent collisions. Whether we like it or not, a newspaper is built around deadlines. They create the fundamental process that allows a newspaper to exist. Deadlines do as much to attract readers as good stories because a good story that misses a reader is a wasted effort. When deadlines aren't met, they're guidelines. Guidelines at busy intersections create wrecks. Wrecks kill - especially editors responsible for writers who can't get it done on time. I'm not adding anything new to what's already been shared. But there's a side of me that just wants to scream: Set deadlines (you can move them as need exists) and enforce them. Keep it simple. You're in charge,
right? Imagine this situation. You are in the slot at midnight on a Friday, and you and the copy desk have already put in a full shift. A story arrives for the Sunday bulldog edition: It is 125 column inches long, or more than 4,500 words. It must be read, edited, and formatted to fit, with headlines and captions written, in two hours. The author and assigning editor, who have been working on this story for two weeks, left the building as soon as it was transmitted it to the copy desk. On first reading, you notice that it has never been spell-checked (which would explain the typos and inconsistent spellings of proper names), that the nut graph arrives a full third of the way into the text, that there are wordy and overwritten passages, and that one or two references might be actionable. For some of the contributors to this discussion, I have proposed a hypothetical situation. For the copy editors, I suspect, as well as for myself, I have recounted historical fact. This is what it is like to work on a copy desk when writers and assigning editors are allowed to disregard deadlines. Deadlines are not whimsical. They, like copy editors' grim working schedules, are dictated by the paper's production schedule. Different sections have different deadlines though the evening because the plates can not be made and put on the press all at once. Edition deadlines are set to allow for a press run that will get the papers to the readers by the paper's daily goal - in The Sun's case, by 6:00 a.m. If the copy desk fails to meet its edition deadlines, there is an excellent chance that the production and delivery of the paper will be delayed; one further consequence is that that story on which the writer has lavished attention will go largely unread. Further, now that pagination has increased the burden of production on the copy desk, there is an irreducible minimum of time required to fit the text to the page, write the captions and display quotes, write and check the headlines. Editing must somehow be fit in. Unfortunately, the reporters, some of whom seem to look on copy editing the way Edwardian gentlemen looked at trade, are unaware of what is involved in this process and disinclined to learn. When stories are routinely moved past deadline - and many such are purely routine news stories and news features, not breaking news or major projects - the consequences are predictable. Major issues are left unaddressed. Errors slip through. Cuts are made hastily and without consultation. Headlines are flat. If I grow warm on
this subject, it is because over the past 22 years among copy editors,
I have been repeatedly told that we must respect the writer's craft, while
few voices have been raised to suggest that they should respect ours. One more suggestion
to Lex's original question: Have the offending parties spend a month or
so on the copy desk. At some papers, copy editors contribute as much as
reporters to the gulf between them, but at all papers copy editors understand
something that few reporters do: We're not just a creative enterprise;
we're also manufacturers. I'm not aware of a newspaper that wouldn't benefit
from more copy editing experience among its reporters and more reporting
experience on its copy desk. John's hypothetical/realistic case study is a powerful reminder of the downstream consequences of upstream sewage. The polluters should be punished. But the system needs reform. Perhaps we have turned the deadline busters into scapegoats for a system and a culture that is still too linear in terms of production, too passive, and too punitive. When I read between the lines of John's missive, I see the effects of cutbacks down to the bone, of fewer copy editors (and reporters) being asked to do more and more. I see the burdens of pagination taking the creativity and energy out of the copy desk, with no compensatory shifting of traditional copy editing roles. All this focus on
the deadline busters may be a way of enabling the profit mongers at the
top of news companies who have been shrinking resources and essentially
liquidating their news enterprises. Now I'm getting warm. All journalists
UNITE! against the forces of financial tyranny. Roy, you are a problem solver. Can you suggest some practical solutions, beyond "unite" ? I raised the "downstream" issue yesterday, as did others, because we thought there was a little too much focus on the struggle reporters endure without any thought about the consequence on colleagues or on what the readers would see. People on a copy desk already work as a team, already know how to make up for others who don't make deadline or turn in poor work, but even copy editors have their limits. While you see scapegoating of reporters, those of us who work on copy desks too often feel we're the scapegoats. When the paper doesn't close on time, it is too often the copy desk, in too many shops, that is left to explain why, usually in late afternoon, well after others in the newsroom have had all day to develop their excuses. And it is far too often that copy editors are not allowed to do even close to their best work because they don't have the time. The technological changes that have allowed us to put stories into the paper more directly, in theory, mean that it is the copy desk that operates in a just-in-time mode, with severe consequences at far too many places. We are hearing from too many young editors that their publication's idea of editing is to run spell check, fit it for a page and set it into type. I refer again to Alex's note yesterday about the huge number of errors, of varying importance, that were fixed in a given night on his desk. Those numbers should give everyone pause, except those who have worked on copy desks. They won't be surprised at all. At our very first ACES conference, two particularly amusing things happened (amusing to the rest of us, not to the individuals): one copy editor/designer was dragged out of a workshop he was attending to answer a phone call from his boss. Back at his newspaper, the computers had crashed and he was the only one who knew how to get around a particular problem with a page that had locked up. Did he expect to be rewarded for this special knowledge? No. He predicted that he'd not be allowed to go on another business trip because his bosses were upset that he wasn't around when they needed him. (And that's aside from the large number of conference attendees who confessed, a little sheepishly, that they'd had to have a lesson in filling out expense forms before coming to our conference because they'd never traveled for their publication.) Another copy editor arrived at the conference, exhausted because she'd worked almost two days straight because, while the reporters, city editors and others had known they were working on a special voters' guide that week, the copy desk wasn't informed until two days before the section was to go to press. These kinds of experiences and the one so clearly outlined by John, could be told a thousand times in similar form, by copy editors and I suspect many assistant city editors, because they happen all the time. Further, if I'm recalling
the original question correctly, the issue was a small team of reporters
who, apparently unlike their reporting colleagues, could not meet deadline.
A copy editor who couldn't meet deadline would be in very serious trouble,
immediately. Why not reporters? One thing I have noticed: On the eve of a national holiday, when everyone (but the copy dsk) wants to leave, the reporters have no difficulty finishing up the stories, and the assigning editors find no obstacle to getting them to the desk on time or early. There is a self-evident
solution to the problems of copy flow and deadlines: more national holidays. Recalling my daily newspaper days it was usually the case that the reporters didn't have sufficient time to report and write the sort of long weekend piece in the hypothetical. Working in a bureau office, I rarely had two full weeks to write a piece and when I did I never wound up really having that time totally free to devote to a piece. Even if my editors said I would have that time and even when I was working on big projects, it just never worked that way, so I was often forced up against the deadline. Some reporters do have days to devote to one specific story and those are the cases I suppose we're talking mostly about when it comes to deadline busters. As much as there is
a gulf between the copy editors and reporters there is also a gulf among
the reporter ranks (or gulfs, actually) and a lot of grumbling goes on
about the star system, whether it exists in reality or not. I suspect
the gulf is wider now because of the financial state of the industry and
all the cutbacks. An awful lot of our discussion seems to be about understanding
each other's jobs better and how those all fit together to lead to one
goal -- getting the news to the readers on time. I once heard a television reporter ask a member of the military if he ever feared being shot and killed. The soldier responded that he did think of that, but he knew coming in that such a scenario was one of the drawbacks of getting into his chosen field. I am always amazed
at reporters who are shocked and amazed that there comes a point when
they need to finish writing the damn thing and send it on down the line
so it can actually appear in the newspaper. This is the nature of the
business they have chosen. It's time for some people to awake from their
fanciful dream of what they perceived the field was like and actually
enter reality. Otherwise, you may gently just usher them into another
profession. I have been enjoying
the responses concerning the issues of deadlines. I want you all to know
they we have the same issue in the TV newsroom. It seems that the reporters
have no problem spending the time to massage and rewrite their pieces,
thus leaving very little time for the videotape editor to do anything
but slap the piece together so it makes it in the newscast. As a result,
the final product looks like s--t. But don't worry it was written well.
Not that anybody will really notice in the TV world, since half of their
attention is tuned into the pictures that do not match the copy. To TV
Reporters....If you really want your pieces to look good, and have justice
done to them, get them done early so the tape editor can do their job,
as well as you want to do yours. I have several observations
and suggestions: --Reporters I've known who started their careers with
the wire services never had problems later making deadline, because they
learned quickly the tricks for organizing their thoughts, sketching an
outline of the story in their heads while driving, banking A-matter ahead
of time, writing in takes, sending write-throughs for later information
and corrections, etc. You may want to think about hiring from that pool
in the future. Meanwhile, if you have a particularly promising writer/reporter
who needs to learn how to manage deadlines, might it be worth asking your
AP bureau to let him/her "intern" there briefly, or shadow a
reporter there for a day or two? --Consider role-playing, with the reporter
calling in a story as soon as it happens and with you or some other editor
acting as "rewrite man." I learned to construct stories rapidly
in my head as a novice reporter, working for afternoon newspapers (Tallahassee
Democrat, now a morning paper, and Miami News, now defunct). The News
was rabidly trying to scoop the Herald, so I was under huge pressure to
make each deadline. I remember "writing" numerous breaking stories
(court verdicts, fires, etc.) standing at public telephones, dictating
graf after graf off the top of my head to the rewrite man. You don't try
to be fancy in such a situation--just clear and complete. --Consider role-switching.
While I was a reporter for most of my career, I had intermittent stints
on the copy desk, doing design, first-read, second read and final read,
headline-writing, and so on. If I were you, I'd pair the copy editors
and reporters and have them take turns switching roles for a couple of
weeks at a time. That would do more to teach deadline-busters respect
for the down-stream difficulties they're creating. And as a side-benefit,
it would give copy editors an opportunity to discover some of the difficulties
inherent in reporting. It would improve communication and respect for
one another's work. --Publicly praise reporters who do handle deadline
stories well. Long non-deadline stories and series usually get all the
rewards and attention in newsrooms, so you'll need to change the reward
system. Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that much of the best writing
is done on deadline; certainly that was true for me. In looking back over
the many project stories I wrote for the St. Pete Times--including some
that won awards--I realized that most of them were over-written and way,
way too long. My deadline stories were invariably better-written because
I didn't worry over them and mess them up. (My tendency to over-write
on projects got corrected quickly when I went to the Wall Street Journal,
where the desk permits no unnecessary word to appear in print.) --Publicly
praise individuals on the copy desk who do a good job of catching errors
or rewriting impossible copy on the fly. How visible are the copy editors
in your newsroom, and how well respected? Don't just praise good work
within the ranks of copy editors, but in the newsroom as a whole, so that
reporters get the message. Carol Gentry's experience resurrected a memory and points to a training technique. I was a college intern at an afternoon daily many pre-computer years ago, and was assigned to cover a morning speech at the local college. There wasn't time to drive back to the office and write, so I dictated from notes. The story was about 8 inches and no great shakes, but it was clear, concise and logically constructed because I didn't have time to stew over the writing and thus overwrite -- something I succumbed to at countless other opportunities. So, if you have reporters
who bust deadlines for unacceptable reasons, who overwrite and/or who
have trouble with focus, require them -- at least once -- to write a news
story by dictation. They may take away some lessons from the exercise. There's another motivator to reporter's who fail to meet their deadlines. It's called a pay cut. "My friend, you
have a serious problem here. We have talked about it too many times. I
want to help you make deadlines and I want us to be fair to our newsroom
copy desk colleagues who are going nuts handling your late stories. I
have a solution: For every deadline you miss, your weekly pay is cut $5
(or $10). When you are earning half of what you made before this solution
took effect, you will be fired." If I were Tony Soprano's shrink I might be tempted to ask this group: "Why are you so angry?" And why are you so angry at writers? Before youse guys respond, "No, we're just angry at the self-indulgent deadline busters," I challenge you to consider the subtext of some of the day's missives. I smell a bit of the "myth of the golden age" here: "By cracky, when I was a cub we didn't even get to write stories; we had to DICTATE stuff, and in the snow, too. But we got our scoop, and made the bulldog edition, and crushed the competition." And ya knew who you were then, goils were goils and men were men, Mister we could use a man like Hoibert Hoover again.... We're beyond deadline
busters now, folks. We're inching toward scribe-o-phobia. Not only do
those darn writers bust deadlines, but they overwrite, and chew up time
and space, and work the good hours, and split town early on vacation weeks.
Carol Gentry is even re-canting her great enterprise work at the St. Pete
Times. Just the facts, ma'am. Just get it in early, make it clear, cover
your ass, keep it short. If this is the hidden message coming to your
writers.... I'll say this as politely as I can, without anger. People need to make deadlines. Editors can get their careers derailed if they can't manage their time. Reporters need to be held to the same standard. The question at hand started with a small group of reporters who consistently failed to make deadline, when others around them were making it. Why do you suppose that is? Because they've been allowed to get away with it. No amount of reassessing the comments, looking for subtexts, wondering if we're looking fondly for the good old days when reporters passed out drunk at their keyboards (and copy editors drank their lunch), changes the original problem--a group of people who think they're exempt from what applies to everyone else. And while I'll agree
that it's easy to underestimate the work reporters do, I suspect that
too often, with the deadline busters we're talking about, there's zero
understanding--or concern--about the harm they inflict on their colleagues
or their readers. One of the more interesting trends I've seen in the
business happens when reporters become editors and they realize what their
best-buddy reporters have been doing to editors by failing to meet deadlines.
And that copy the reporters have been crafting for hours still needs a
lot of work, well after they're already missed deadline. And while sometimes
reporters ought to be cut some slack when they're engaged in big projects
and haven't themselves had the time they've been promised for those projects,
too often it's the routine stories that are equally late. Bravo, Pam. You hit it on the head. The case in question is about a group of reporters who routinely break deadline, frequently by as much as 24 hours. As much as we all bemoan the cutbacks in people and resources in our newsrooms, and the so-called advantages of technology that solve one problem and create others, and the newsroom star system, and the failure of copy editors and reporters to relate, and the lousy food in our lunchrooms, etc. ---- none of these excuses get to the core of this problem. People who routinely miss deadlines by as much as 24 hours are not professional print journalists. Their failure to fundamentally do their job is the problem. The solution is simple
but never easy: talk to them about the problem, try to coach them out
of it. Document every step. If this fails over time, find them another
job or get rid of them. Let me suggest that if there is a tone of anger about reporters, there may be reason for it. The reporter-turned-editor who dismissed copy editors as "a bunch of bed-wetters." The reporter of uncertain skills who demanded an accounting, on edition deadline, of every keystroke in the copy editing of a story. The reporter who described a minor change in a lead, one agreed to by the assigning editor, as "tragic." The reporters who have made "voice" a suspect word and "You're draining the life out of my story" a cliché. The confectors of grossly mixed metaphors who imagine that they are Flaubert. In the time I have worked on copy desks, it has been almost universally the case that the best reporters were most cooperative with the copy desk. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by reporters whose work has identifiable flaws but who express resistance and outright scorn to copy editors. That ASNE report from a decade ago identifying the copy desk as an outpost of low morale? You suppose that the dismissive attitudes that copy editors live with every day at many papers might have something to do with that? You need to get out
more, Roy. Anytime you want to come up to Baltimore, I will make a place
for you on the rim so that you can see first-hand the prose that people
think is publishable - at a paper of good repute. You may then be able
to imagine what it is like elsewhere, and why some of the people who have
posted here sound so irked. As a former copy editor, former reporter, currently assigning editor, I have lived all sides of this. I know that sometimes reporters blow deadlines because they have too much to do. I know that sometimes reporters blow deadline because they get stuck. I know that sometimes they blow deadline because they want the story to be perfect and they just can't let it go. I also know that sometimes copy editors don't care about any of those reasons; they just want the copy. And I know that assigning editors generally try every trick in their bag--talking a story through, helping the reporter map the story, urging them to send over a story that isn't quite done yet, wheedling, threatening, storming out of the room...and sometimes none of those things make any difference. I believe that a reporter
who wants to make deadline generally will. I believe that a reporter (or
a group of reporters) who consistently blow deadline don't really care
about making deadline. And I also believe that there's no way to make
somebody care about being professional, about following the rules that
everyone else follows and doing a good job. We have no repercussions here,
really--we don't fire people, we don't dock their pay, we don't even kill
their stories. and without desire to change, and without repercussions
to force change, I just don't know what the answer is. Subtext, shmubtext. For some stories, it comes down to this: When a story makes the hair on the back of our collective neck stand up, it's worth pushing deadline. That's not a license to brood and peacock over copy and it doesn't relate to the case at bar about habitual deadline busters, but it's a recognition that greatness takes what it takes. Regarding other stories, and this revealing debate, I'd add this: One of the things we love about this business, I think, is the tension. Between time and talent. Between ideal and real. Between writers and editors. (Even between high quality and high profits.) You can do a lot of things with tension, none of which involves letting it drive you crazy or ruin your relationships with co-workers. You can use it to fuel good, honest debates. You can use it to strike creative sparks in your newsroom. You can use it to help reporters learn a bit more about the work life of copy editors, and vice versa. But one thing you can't do with tension: Resolve it. Once you do that, it's no longer tension. And then the story's
over. John: Maybe I took
my stupid pills by mistake this morning, but I don't see what's wrong
with resolving tension caused by incompetent people. Not all tension is
creative. Tension caused by people who can't/won't do their job is destructive.
I think we've hit on key points that reflect the state of copy editing and newspapering in the 21st century. Roy is spot-on when he speaks of newspaper companies cutting copy desks to the bone, with fewer copy editors being asked to do more and more. Resources have been shrinking in newsrooms, and the copy desk is the last link in the chain. Publishers and editors do need to recognize how time-consuming pagination is. I have coached at a few papers where no one is allowed to edit copy AND paginate on the same night. But the most frequent comment I hear in newsrooms is, "We're so busy doing coding and making things fit that we don't have time to edit copy." As far as having copy editors and reporters swap jobs: Editors have told me that reporters don't have the skills to handle pagination and that no one has time to train them. And do the reporters want to learn? I know overworked copy editors who work their tails off on deadline to make sure clean, crisp copy and well-written headlines go into the paper. How, they ask me, can we make a case for more copy editors when the publisher sees that the paper looks fine? As a former copy editor and assigning editor, I've certainly tackled the last-minute projects that need lots of work. Top-notch reporters know that the deadline is often their best friend. After all is said
and done, I must agree with John Burr: Meeting deadline is part of the
job. If you don't do it, you get a different job. Rosalie, Editors who say reporters
couldn't learn their jobs are trying to protect the mystery and power
of their jobs. Someone took the time to train them. Yes, some reporters
don't have the skills to handle pagination (and some copy editors don't
have the skills to handle database analysis or confrontation interviews).
But the newsroom benefits when people learn new skills. And a reporter
who can't meet deadline needs to learn some new skills. I think Chip was
correct when he wrote that many deadline busters are perfectionists. (They're
sometimes procrastinators, too.) However, a good assignment editor should
work quickly to find solutions. Maybe it's an individual problem that
can be corrected. Or, maybe several reporters need a training session
on what the copy editors must endure at deadline when they are assaulted
by too many stories. Readers expect papers on time. When they walk out
at 6:30 a.m. to find their papers, they want it then, not at 7 a.m. when
they're getting ready for work. Break their routine too many times, and
they'll break the tradition of reading you daily. In some cases, there
can be reasons to bust deadlines: A disaster. An election that has a wide-ranging
impact. An event that draws thousands of people but ends late. An investigative
piece that adds last-minute information. In Oklahoma, the OU Sooners playing
football on a Saturday night. It's important to note that you can plan
for many of these. (Except, of course, for disasters or mass tragedies.
And even then some quick calls can help avoid disaster at deadline time.)
Let's face it, dang it: There are no perfect solutions. However, before
firing someone or cutting a person's pay, let's communicate, seek reasons
first and then find ways to communicate so the problem can be corrected
in the future. Twenty-five years ago, this happened to me at my first newspaper job. My boss took $10 out of my check because I continually missed deadline on a story about child abuse. Never talked to me. Of course, I'd never explained why I hadn't finished the story. I was infuriated by the lost $10. Wanted to sue. Went to see a retired N.Y.C. lawyer, Ambrose Cram, a man so shrewd that he once refused to hire Dick Nixon to work at his law firm. Ambrose said I had a case. Made me feel better. I'd get that SOB who'd docked my salary. But then Ambrose asked a question: Had I made deadline? Well, no. Did my boss have a point? Well, yes. Was it my responsibility to make deadline? Well, yes. So had I let the paper down by not getting the story done on time? Had I let myself down by not talking with the editor about the status of the story? Yes, but, but, but ..... I learned a huge lesson that Sunday afternoon at the home of Ambrose and Mary Frances Cram. I never sued; instead, I've had more fun over the years reminding my ex-boss that he still owes me $10. And I learned that it's my responsibility to make deadline, no matter what. Thanks, fellow writers,
for this great discussion. And thanks to Amby for setting me straight.
|