I’m reading Essential English by Harold Evans (buy it, it’s amazing) and I thought I’d test myself.
I spotted a story in the Lincolnshire Echo that I think needs tweaking. Read the original here. I’ll paste sections from the article and then write what I think needs changing.
The Horse and Groom pub in Carholme Road has “to let” signs posted outside it along with notes warning customers the site is temporarily closed for business.
We can strip away “posted”, and do the signs really “warn” customers that the pub is closed? Warnings are, generally speaking, for dangerous or difficult situations. Unless you have to be warned not to walk into closed doors, you’re going to be “told”. So, it should read “telling customers”. Moreover, “the site is temporarily closed for business” can be streamlined as “it’s closed down”.
Little is known about the closure of a pub motorists stare at every day while waiting at the Carholme Road traffic lights.
Do we need this sentence? It doesn’t add anything to the story.
It had once been the city’s main gay bar until it was turned into a live music venue when it changed hands in 2007.
This can be shortened to “It was the city’s main gay bar until it became a live music venue in 2007.” Twenty-four words cropped to sixteen.
Now its closure has shone a light once again on the perilous state of small pubs in the city.
Yuk. This is just bad poetry. The phrase “shone a light once again” is horrible. “Highlights” is much better, as it’s one word and it’s the present tense. Also, “perilous state” – not a great term to use. Perhaps “The closure highlights the difficulties for the city’s small pubs” is better. It’s concise and doesn’t lose any of the original sentence’s meaning.
One landlord told the Echo he needed to make £250 a day to break even.
“Needs” not “needed”. Keep it active, not passive.
The Horse and Groom could well be open for business again soon if it is let out.
As the Horse and Groom has already been named earlier in the article, do we need this repetition? Just refer to it as “pub”. Besides, this sentence states the bleedin’ obvious. You might as well add “but it may remain closed if nobody wants it”. Oh wait…
But for the time-being, the kitchen is closed and a sign has gone up stating “pub business to let”.
So, in two sentences, 37 words have told me nothing that I don’t already know. All of it can go. It could be replaced with a fact about the national closure rates of small pubs in the UK, to add value for the reader.
Well, that’s it. Have I been too much of a pedant? Or not enough? Or am I totally wrong and the original is fine?
Great book. I’ve had it since my first year.
Good work.
The reference made to the pub being one motorists stare at while sitting at the lights, is a good way of reminding people of where the pub is located – not everyone knows every road name in the city. Also, it adds a little colour to the story. On the point of saying the pub is closed, rather than saying temporarily closed, if you had boned up on media law (something which will be vital in any media job) you would know that if the story said it had closed (for good) the paper could be in trouble legally. You may also need a bit more work on what you think the correct tenses are here. And lastly, many words, such as ‘highlight’ are often over-used.
Thanks for the comment, although you really should use your real name ;o)
See the response to Dan’s comment RE the legal side, tenses, and use of “highlights”.
I disagree about clarifying where the pub is. Carholme Road is one of the only routes out of this city, so it’s going to be well known. I think cutting the word-count is of more value than painting a picture.
Hi Shane,
I was interested to read your critique of Rob Rowlands’ story and I would like to make you aware of some issues with your subbing. ‘Temporarily closed for business’ is not the same as ‘closed down’. Suggesting that a business has closed down, if there is a chance it could reopen, could be legally actionable. Defamation would arise from the suggestion that a viable business has become non-viable.
You could crop the fact that the pub has changed hands but you would be cropping facts out of the story. You might do that if you needed to save eight words but we didn’t. Why not keep pertinent facts in wherever possible?
Highlights might be better than ‘shone a light’ if Rob had not been told to avoid ‘highlights’ since we use it quite frequently. Stories must be seen in context.
If I said something to you, I would say I told Shane he needed to improve his subbing, rather than I told Shane he needs to improve his subbing. This is a style point. Different papers do it different ways – it isn’t ‘wrong’.
You might regard ‘stating the bleedin’ obvious’ as pointless. Sometimes it is legally sound to do so. In this case, we make it perfectly clear to readers and the lawyers representing the owners, that we are not saying the pub has ‘closed down’.
In understand that you have subbed the story in terms of grammar but bear in mind that legal and style issues also come into play.
Regards,
Dan Sharp
Hi Dan, thanks for taking the time to comment.
I take your points about the legal implications and you’re right, I was only intending to look at grammar and style etc. We could debate whether you’re being too legally cautious or not, but that’s for another time!
I think to keep it present and active is important. It keeps the story alive.
As for ‘highlights’ – who cares if you use it a lot? “Shone a light once again on the perilous state” is horrible. Don’t you want to save space in your print edition? Plus readers will be thinking ‘get to the point’ – surely? Print writing, so I’m taught, is about producing tight, succinct copy.
Legally cautious? We could debate it but I can tell you that some newspapers would have sacked you (as a sub) for allowing that to reach the print edition. You would certainly have been disclipined. I would have opted for the latter but perhaps I am too soft.
Journalists (and journalism students) seem to believe that contempt of court is the most dangerous area of law for newspapers. In reality, defamation actions, particularly on a no-win no-fee basis are the far greater risk.
Before the law changed to allow no-win no-fee, newspapers were more able to write ‘the pub has closed down’ without fear of reprisal because no-one had the money to fight it in court. Now the risk is substantial.
I realise that you want to be fearless in reporting the truth but have a care. There are plenty of people out there who delight in launching spurious lawsuits over seemingly minor points in local newspaper stories.
We have faced dozens of such actions during my 10 years at the Echo and have yet to lose a single case, largely because our stories are carefully checked for legal issues before publication and balanced where necessary.
Again, while I appreciate your zeal, the difference between ‘closed down’ and ‘temporarily closed’ is really not worth £10,000 in legal costs and your job, particularly if we are later able to confirm the legal status of the closure and make a more detailed report further down the line.
Lucky I don’t want to be a sub then!
Fair call, libel laws are ridiculous. Particularly no-win no-fee. Perhaps I’m looking at it too much from the safety of a lecture theatre than the reality of a newsroom.
In some cases it’s still worth the risk, though. That said, a story about the Horse and Groom probably isn’t!