3 Big Thank-You’s

Allow me to take a moment, gentle reader, to scribble down three notes of thanks:

1. CatholicMom.com

My “New Media Sister” Sarah Reinhard (and “Domer Tailgater Mom” Lisa Hendey), very kindly added me to their roster of bloggers to know about over on CatholicMom.com this week.  Mrs. Reinhard interviewed me for this piece some time ago, and kindly allowed me to both speak to my own experience in media, as well as get in a bit of humor at the end, while saying some very kind things about me, herself.  I’m really honored to have been included. Thanks and God bless, CatholicMom.com!

2. WordPress.Com

The editors at WordPress have once again selected one of my posts for spotlighting in their “Freshly Pressed” section.  The piece in question was this one, which rose out of news that London’s National Gallery was going to reverse a long-standing policy, and allow museum visitors to take photos.  The editors complimented my taking a general overview of the subject of photography inside museums, and encouraging readers to share their own thoughts and opinions about the question.  This is now the 5th time that I’ve been selected for “Freshly Pressed”, and I’m just as grateful today for their most recent nod of approval: thank you very much indeed, WordPress.

3. YOU.

Finally, my thanks to you, dear reader, for subscribing to this blog, or bookmarking and dropping by when you’re in the mood for something to read. It’s always wonderful to be recognized by your peers, particularly when you don’t work in media for a living, but no recommendation or accolade means as much as knowing that your readers enjoy what you write enough to want to stick around.  I offer you my sincere gratitude for your continued patronage of these virtual pages.

"Chez Tortoni" by Edouard Manet (c. 1878-1880) Stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston in 1990

“Chez Tortoni” by Edouard Manet (c. 1878-1880)
Stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston in 1990

 

Why Being A Good Editor Matters

I heard on the radio this morning that Ben Bradlee, Executive Editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate era, turns 93 today.  If you’ve ever seen “All The President’s Men”, you’ll remember Jason Robards’ turn as Mr. Bradlee, which won the actor an Oscar.  At one point in the film, Bradlee raises questions about his reporters’ source for an article, but then realizes that he must trust them to do their job properly.  “I can’t do the reporting for my reporters,” he admits, “which means I have to trust them. And I hate trusting anybody. Run that baby.”  One wonders what Mr. Bradlee thinks of that trust level today, or indeed, what Perry White would think of it.

News that a rare, pristine copy of the first comic book to feature Superman sold for $3.2 million this weekend has generated a substantial amount of media reporting over the last couple of days.  Unfortunately, the rush to report also generated numerous errors in grammar and punctuation, enough to make any high school English teacher go into paroxysms of rage.  At the same time, the hurried storytelling has revealed, once again, that too many news outlets are committing factual errors in the urge to upload.

It’s hard to know where to begin with this piece from MTV News, for example.  Opening with poor verb-subject agreement (“statistics” is plural in this instance, not singular) is not a good omen for what’s to come.  I realize that many of my readers and followers have a problem with my pointing out this sort of thing.  However, errors in grammar and punctuation do make a difference.  This is a fact made all the more apparent when reading a bullet point like this:

4. This debut issue features the first appearance of Superman, alias Clark Kent and Lois Lane.

When you do not put a comma after “Clark Kent”, the headline becomes rather different, as I think you’ll agree.

Then there are the obvious research and reasoning issues with this piece.  For example, the author’s statement about Christopher Reeve being the first to play Superman on the silver screen is simply wrong.  Not only was there a live-action Superman series shown in movie theatres back in the 1940’s, in addition to animated cartoons, but George Reeves played Superman in the first feature film about the character in 1951.

The piece concludes with Reason No. 5 for the price of this very expensive comic book.  The author explains that Superman was originally an orphan, and that neither the Kents nor Kansas were mentioned at first in his mythology.  I’ll choose not to split hairs over the Last Son of Krypton being an orphan, and instead focus on the real problem with this assertion.  It isn’t so much that it could have been phrased better, but the fact that it’s irrelevant to the story.  It’s a bit like saying that a Francis Bacon painting sold for tens of millions of dollars because his last name also happens to be Twitter’s favorite pork product.

Of course, I don’t mean to pick on this individual writer, per se.  The real issue in my mind is whether anyone at MTV News actually does any editing, given that they let this piece be published as-is.  Keep in mind, this is just one, short piece on a pop culture subject, so one has to ask oneself what else are editors at major media outlets allowing to slip past on more serious matters.

Trying to put out a well-written, well-researched story is more important than simply throwing information onto the digital wall as quickly as possible, and hoping that at least some of it sticks.  Without common writing standards, and the enforcement of those standards by editors, writing becomes a kind of free-for-all, in which no one may point out anyone else’s faults.  Yet if you don’t tell me what I’m doing wrong, how am I ever going to get better?

If you write online, you have just as much responsibility to your readers when you hit “publish” as a newspaper or book publisher does.  If you expect your online readers to pay attention to what you’re about to tell them, then you have to be authoritative, and back it up with facts.  You also have to command the language, rather than either allowing language rules to intimidate you, or pretending that they don’t matter when they most certainly do.  Just because blogging is a new form of media, doesn’t mean that you should be allowed to escape the virtual red pen of a good editor.

Clark Kent could have snapped Perry White like a twig, if he wanted to.  Nevertheless, he respected his editor, and followed his orders when it came to writing a story.  Let’s all try to aspire to good writing and good editing in following that example, even if that means being corrected for mistakes, so that we can improve upon the writing powers we already have.

Perry White and Clark Kent by Curt Swan/George Klein  Panel from Action Comics #288 "The Man Who Exposed Superman" (1962)

Panel featuring Perry White and Clark Kent by Curt Swan/George Klein
Action Comics #288 “The Man Who Exposed Superman” (1962)

 

 

 

Crazy in Divorce: Why A Ruined Marriage Is No Fun

Does the following headline disturb you?

Single sensation: A breakup with Jay Z could push Beyoncé’s career to even greater heights
If it comes down to a split, being a cool, fierce single mom could make the singer more popular than ever

In breathless tones the accompanying article, published today, provides reasons why the possible divorce of two very famous entertainers might turn out to be a sound professional move for both parties.  Against my better judgment in directing you to read it, I’d like to take a moment to point out why you should find such an argument to be insane.

To begin with, the piece tells us that if her marriage breaks up, Beyoncé will be able to spend time doing exciting, glamorous things, such as associate with other celebrities like Oprah Winfrey.  [N.B. I should point out that this is something which she already does anyway, but there you are.]  As a “fierce” and “cool” single mother, the article speculates that she would only gain more fans than she already possesses.  To some extent the author is probably correct, albeit callously so.

The report goes on to reassure the reader that financially, should the couple divorce, “Bey” will recover quickly, since she achieved her fame and fortune independently of her husband.  A “crisis coach” quoted in the piece advises that, “if more cheating rumors come out, and she looks like she is standing by her man, that might hurt her more, professionally, than leaving him.” If indeed infidelity is to blame here, cheating on one’s spouse could also prove to be possible future entertainment material for both performers, the article concludes, telling us that Jay-Z “for his part, can cleverly profit off of this breakup by teasing the reasons in song lyrics.”

I do not know, or frankly care, enough about either Beyoncé’s or Jay-Z’s personal life to weigh in on what may or may not have happened to their marriage.  I do, however, have a word or two to say about the rather bizarre, underlying premise of this news item, which is that divorce can be viewed as fun and profitable for everyone involved, if examined through the funhouse mirror distortions of our present, celebrity-obsessed culture.  This is madness.

For starters, none of the people I know who have had to go through a divorce found the experience to have been one which they would wish upon someone else, no matter how “amicable” the proceedings.  Divorce is, in fact, the exact opposite of being amicable.  It is a formalized recognition of at least some degree of permanent enmity, which prevents the parties from staying together.

When they seek a divorce, instead of simply choosing to live apart from each other, a couple is asking for formal recognition by society that they have profound, insurmountable differences, which must result in the dissolution of their marriage.  Through our system of laws, we have created a technical process by which this result can be achieved.  Yet whatever may go on in public, and no matter how civilized the proceedings, we do not know the range of emotions and problems which those contemplating or actually going through with a divorce may be experiencing, that may affect them for the rest of their lives.

It’s true that in some cases, divorce may be the only solution to an utterly destroyed marriage.  However, we need to realize the fundamental fact that when a divorce takes place, a family unit breaks down.  Our society is built on the bedrock of family life which, when it crumbles, causes the entire social structure built upon it to be weakened.  To give the impression that divorce can be fun and profitable therefore, is not only to belittle the sorrows of those who have gone through it, but to further chip away at what is supposed to keep us from descending into social chaos.

Marriages fall into ruin quite often these days; for some, it has become little more than an expensive excuse for throwing a costume party every few years, as the mood strikes.  Better journalism, and indeed better citizenship, demands that we stop treating both marriage and divorce so lightly.  Divorce is not, nor should it be, a cause for celebration and excitement, no matter whose divorce we are talking about.

Detail of "Capriccio with Roman Ruins" by Francesco Guardi (c. 1760-1770) Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Detail of “Capriccio with Roman Ruins” by Francesco Guardi (c. 1760-1770)
Victoria and Albert Museum, London