Beyond The Editor Wall

If you’ve been around the past few years, you’ve probably been witness to plenty of talk about the Editor Wall (see this and this) and how to best deal obstinate bosses or newsroom cultures that prompt the old “narrative is essentially rejected at my paper” lines. I still get a fair amount of mail from folks struggling against such forces. They’re “beaten down,” as Dave put it in that last link, which is sad.

That’s why I was so glad to see some cool stuff recently from William Browning, who covers crime for the Casper Star-Tribune. You’ve probably noticed a few on here in the past few months (Scottie, The Sweeper, A man with a past in a fading town, etc.).

William’s work — and his engaging voice, and the fact that he’s writing stuff like this on a cops beat at a paper with a city staff of, what, six or seven? — made me curious about who edits him, and what their relationship is like. I just today read this one, in which he saves the payoff until graph 14.

His editor is David Mayberry, assistant managing editor for city and sports. I showed David some of our previous discussions on the topic and told him we’re a friendly crowd. He was kind enough to answer some questions. Maybe he’ll join us on here if y’all have more, and I hope you do.

Could you share a little about your philosophy on editing? What do you look for in a story?

Based on the responses to some of the prior threads, I need to make a key point that is often lost in the daily grind of newspaper reporting: Both the editor and reporter need to understand, embrace and complete job expectations as outlined by their supervisors.

Those can sometimes be in conflict with individual needs and wants, but if both sides can begin each day with an understanding of what’s expected and what needs to be accomplished, there is a better chance both sides will succeed. Communication improves, and the final product is what both sides will be satisfied with.

If a reporter has a different vision for his position, conflict will be the norm. The same is true for the editor. Trust will be a neverending hurdle.

The more trust I have in a reporter, the more leeway I’m going to allow in time, resources and leeway in narrative writing.

Also, every editor has writing peeves that makes him cringe. As a reporter, learn what pushes your editor’s bad button and stop doing it. Write around it. Use sticky notes to remind yourself. And if you have to break some in-house writing rules have a good reason for it and be ready to defend it.

Back to the questions…

For narratives from my reporters, I read through the story without noting, changing or marking anything. The motive in the first read-through is to identify the voice of the writer and the tone of the story. If I can’t identify either, major work will likely be needed. This is a critical development point for most reporters, and the time at which they find and utilize that voice varies. There isn’t an umbrella answer for when it happens, but I can usually ask this question to find the answer: Is it unique for the purpose of the story or simply over-written?

My biggest concern entering the editing process is losing the writer’s voice. I’ve seen too many reporters submit good pieces only to have other editors rewrite them completely with little to no tangible improvement in the final product. The stories read like the editor’s writing without his byline. The negative impacts far outweight the lone positive of just finishing the story. While that may be OK and sometimes necessary with daily pieces, a narrative can’t be pushed this route for it to be successful.

Once I’ve completed the first read, I note themes and topics, people and places, degrees of description, and the effectiveness of transitions. I ask myself if the characters, experiences and emotions are relatable to readers. While there may be few or no people who have experienced what is told in the story, there needs to be a connection through the words. Without it, the writer is simply writing for himself.

How does a reporter earn your trust? And how are you defining voice?

How does a reporter earn your trust?

* Knows that he is a reporter first, writer second. * Understands and completes daily duties. * Submits copy that is consistently factually sound. * Submits copy that is (relatively) clean. * Consistently communicates reporting plans or changes to the existing plan. * Meets agreed upon deadlines and eliminates excuses for missing them. * Demonstrates an ability to report before writing. I’ve cringed more than a few times when reporters have outlined stories before talking to anyone. Let the sources speak before you write. * Demonstrates an understanding of the difference between equal coverage and fair coverage. * Shows an ability to elicit information from difficult sources. * Shows an ability to judge the importance of a story and uses the right words to illustrate that context.

How are you defining voice?

I’ve been thinking about this for some time, hoping to find a formula to help myself and others get rich off our words. That hasn’t happened. Yet.

But the timeline for defining and developing a writing voice is what interests me the most, given the size of our newspaper and the talent we typically attract. There’s a crucial career point for a reporter who grasps the items I outlined in earning trust:

Am I going to be a straight-forward, data-driven, AP-style focused reporter?

Or am I capable of adding depth to my stories?

The former isn’t a bad thing or a career-ending fork; there are several amazingly talented people who are better at news reporting than narrative writing.

That said, reporters – for the most part, we’re obscenely competitive – will almost always make an attempt at the latter. It comes with an understanding of the beat, the environment, the readers, the topic.

Will was a solid writer before he arrived here, and his writing voice has evolved since then. There’s uniqueness to his voice, most notably in the pacing. That, I think, is the most difficult challenge in developing a successful narrative tone. But there are other aspects that help define that.

To find the writer’s voice, I look at the emotion, pacing, variety, restraint and transitions.

By its label, a narrative needs to read differently than a daily story. There’s a depth and sense to the tale not found in other stories. The reader needs to feel the words, not just read them.

Problems with pacing and transitions will be evident if you read the story aloud. If it’s choppy, it’s sloppy.

There needs to be a variety in sentence and paragraph length; and appropriate and restrained use of dashes, ellipses and italics. Keep me surprised and engaged, but don’t use a grammatical tool just because you think it looks cute on the screen. The words must drive the story.

Do you read stories aloud with reporters? Do you find that helpful?

Rarely, but I’ve certainly suggested writers do it. Maybe I need to start …

As noted earlier, after the first read, I identify themes and topics. This goes back to part of my response to an earlier question:

Once I’ve completed the first read, I note themes and topics, people and places, degrees of description, and the effectiveness of transitions. I ask myself if the characters, experiences and emotions are relatable to readers.

I may suggest reorganizing some sections based on the above or simply note places where the story requires more detail or better transitions. That by itself forces the writer to concentrate on those areas and improve them. If he finds the improvement by reading it aloud, great. I suppose it depends on the writer and editor.