Skip to main content

Thoughts on journalistic lingo

 


Not surprisingly, the US goes its own way on much journalistic lingo, using terms distinct from those employed in the same context by the rest of the English speaking world.

Consider the "sidebar". Often, for a important story, there is material that is pertinent to an understanding of the story but that does not QUITE fit into it. A story, after all, is a narration, not a data dump.  Anyway, the additional material that bears upon a story is often carried separately, by its side, or within a outline (a "box") nearby.  

In the US, this is called a "sidebar." In rest of Anglophone, it is a "boxout". 

Consider also the "subhead". This is an often italicized bit of material below the headline but before the lead paragraph ("lede graf").  In the US -- subhead.  Rest of world -- standfirst. 

And the "copy editor"? This is the last person between the journalist writing a story and the general public about to read it.  The copy editor will generally give it a final scrub for issues of punctuation, grammar, or just plain typos.

I work nowadays, due to the miracles of technology, from my home in Massachusetts but under the supervision of people in London, England.  I have learned that the copy editor is, in the home office, a "submissions editor" or for short a "sub".  When I send in copy I am expected to ask for a "sub and pub"  -- for a final read through and scrub to be followed by publication.

To me, though, "sub and pub" even after more than three years working for these folk still sounds like it ought to mean something else.  "Let's meet in the bar to discuss this story -- we can split a grinder for lunch." Or would that be "to the pub for a sub"? 

Okay I'm a long-term resident of southern New England.  For those of you who live anywhere else, a "grinder" is pictured above.  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
25 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
11 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more