Envirocomm

Where is the Old-Fashioned, Tough Copy Editor?
September 14, 2012

When and why does a news channel put in the stumbles, repeats of words by the interviewed source?

Here is an example From PBS News online 9/13/12:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came under fire Wednesday for releasing a statement late Tuesday criticizing the administration's response to the attacks on the diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya before it was known that four American lives had been lost, including that of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.
At a hastily arranged news conference in Jacksonville, Fla., Wednesday, the GOP presidential nominee rejected the notion that his campaign jumped the gun with its statement.
"I don't think we — we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles. We express immediately when we feel that the president and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America," Romney said.
Romney also sought to blame the administration for the statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo before the attacks that appeared aimed at calming tensions in Egypt over an anti-Muslim film made in California.
"The statement that came from the administration was — was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a — a severe miscalculation," Romney charged.

My view: Including stumbles or hesitancy appears to be a deliberate decision by the journalist or news channel to diminish the news source.

The print version of an interview should not be used to editorialize.

In the old days of print media, the decision on what got into print was the jurisdiction of a crusty-tough copy desk editor. This was often a tough, seasoned journalist who went for accurate, straight, clear content, and clean quotes. The copy-desk editor at the Columbus (GA) Ledger, where I worked in my youth, would have cracked my knuckles for turning in copy in which the interviewed source repeats words, showing either a speech defect or an uncertainty. So a piece appears in print (or online) with phrases such as "we — we"? "was — was"? "a — a"?

Come on. Give the source, the speaker and me, the reader, a break.

What's the lesson for corporate communicators and other spokesperson enablers? You can't control what reporters write. You can't rely on channel editors to do the fair thing.

The only recourse to assure straight, no stumbling, precise delivery of your well conceived news or statements is to make sure your spokesperson is a — a, well — well, a — a programmed robot.

E. Bruce Harrison, September 14, 2012

    Bruce Harrison is an adjunct professor in the master's program at
    Georgetown University, Washington, DC. He and Judith Muhlberger teach
    courses in leadership communications and corporate crisis communications.

To comment on this article, click here.

Follow Bruce's comments on LinkedIn and on Twitter.

Back to top