The user is unlikely to
re-read a story that is difficult to understand; he/she will go elsewhere. So
the language needs to be simple and unambiguous.
The feedback we receive makes it clear that we are
perceived, not surprisingly, as being part of a long-established BBC tradition – whereby words and grammar are used with precision
and consistency, and objectivity is the byword. This section (illustrated
largely with examples from the site) concentrates on helping you slide effortlessly
into this mould! “Telling a good story”
remains the essence. But there are many decisions to be made in that process –
on choice of words, sentence-structure, proper use of grammar, and so on.
The process begins when a story is allocated to you…
Favour short words, rather than long ones. Don’t say: “HOWEVER, a new FACILITY has been
ESTABLISHED APPROXIMATELY a mile away – FOLLOWING an INVESTIGATION
DEMONSTRATING that there are INSUFFICIENT supplies of COMESTIBLES”. Rather: “But a new plant has been set up
about a mile away – after an inquiry showing there are not enough supplies of
food”.
But: avoid colloquialisms (mum, dad, top ‘tec, tot, etc).
We spoke in one story of a
MASS exodus of Serbs, in a second of the absence of a “PREVIOUS precedent”,
and, in a third, of a treaty being “FORMALLY ratified” – where, in each case, the adjective/adverb is unnecessary,
because its sense is implicit in the noun (as it would be in “strange
phenomenon” or “general consensus”).
Note that “pre-planned” is a
tautology; so too “pre-condition”, “advance warning”, “complete elimination”.
To quote from (Keith)
Waterhouse on Newspaper Style: “Tautology
is not only a waste of words in a context where every word should count, it is
also proof of slack workmanship. Sentences containing tautologisms have not
been crafted, they have been slung together.
How reliable, then, the reader is entitled to ask, are the facts they
contain?”
Two other points on unnecessary words: beware of ending a story about, say, a murder, with
the sentence “Police are questioning three men ABOUT THE KILLING”. What else?
The weather? Their holiday plans? It’s sufficient just to say “Police are
questioning three men”. And don’t overdo the use of the word “that”. Example: “The man said THAT he had murdered
his wife so THAT he could marry his lover” – where the omission of both THATS
would save space without impairing meaning.
Obviously, we’re dealing with a changing language.
Words and phrases which start their lives in the States often become integrated
into UK English with remarkable speed (“Gay”, meaning homosexual, is quite a
recent import; likewise, “soft drink”), and this is a continuing process. But it’s not our job to “lead the way”. You
should avoid any words which might be unfamiliar to some of your audience. So
don’t use:
SIDEWALK (instead, say: pavement) ELEVATOR (lift) TRUCKER (lorry-driver)
MEET WITH (meet)
CONSULT WITH (consult)
You should avoid words and phrase which have
different meanings for US and UK users:
eg “slated” (here =
criticised; there = nominated);
“tabled” (here = proposed for discussion; there = shelved); “went a bomb” (here = succeeded; there =
failed)
And don’t fall victim to the American habit of creating verbs out of nouns,
such as:
HOSPITALISED SCAPEGOATED AUTHORED
Beware, especially, the language of the American
agencies - demonstrators in the USA
tend to throw “ROCKS” – which, to our UK readers, are rather large objects
found on beaches and rockeries, and almost impossible to throw. We should have
protesters throwing “stones” (and they should NOT, as in one story from the
site, be “PROTESTING government pay
policy” – but, rather, “protesting against,”
“at” “over” or “about”).
Similarly, we have had a small epidemic of US-style
time references: “Rudy Giuliani was in Washington WEDNESDAY”, Muslim
pilgrims were “returning to Mina MONDAY”, etc.
Say “on Wednesday”, “on Monday”, etc.
Also: beware American spelling. See “Spelling” (below).
Take care when using any terms favoured by
specialists, such as “UK ‘struggling
with internet encryption’ ” (which was in a headline, meant to invite the
reader into the body of the story). The jargon of the UN and similar
organisations often requires translation (eg we quoted the UNHCR complaint
that security problems were making it difficult for aid workers “to PRIORITISE
their activities”).
The problem worsens where a non-specialist would use
the word in question completely differently (for instance, we had epilepsy experts talking about “a FITTING
person”. Surely, it is better to avoid all ambiguity by using the phrase, “a
person having a fit”).
We should NOT follow the tabloid habit of making
every attempt a “bid” (the papers
love it because it fits easily into a headline). Our frequent misdemeanours
have included: “Police have
moved into the area, IN A BID to clear a path for traffic”; Madeleine Albright making “a BID to allay
Moscow’s fears” over Yugoslavia; and
BMW’s “BID” to turn round Rover.
Use “bid” only for financial bids – as by companies and football clubs, or at
auctions.
Other tabloid terms we should steer clear of include:
“CLAMPDOWN” “DEATH TOLL” “DAWN SWOOP”
“MERCY DASH” “EMOTIONAL
APPEAL” "LAST DITCH PEACE
TALKS"
And remember that “The bomb
caused damage WORTH millions of pounds” is a nonsense. Damage is worth nothing.
Say “damage put at” or “estimated at”.
Best, too, not to repeat any
of our previous flirtations with journalese. Among them: we referred to Dusty
Springfield at second reference as “the songstress”; we had Johnny Morris dying from a “MYSTERY illness” (mysterious)
and we spoke of Michael Owen as the “TEEN soccer star” (teenage).
Avoid cliches
– as they say, “like the plague”. Think at least twice before electing to use,
for example,
·
“the bottom line”
·
“in the pipeline”
·
“a level playing field”
·
“calm but tense”
·
“the situation remains
confused”
·
“kicked into the long
grass”.
And then (almost always!) don’t.
Always aim at neutrality of language. For example:
we said that Northern Foods had been “FORCED to stop using
genetically-modified ingredients”. Untrue! No-one “forced” NF to act – it was a
commercial decision. We needed simply
to say: “Northern Foods HAS STOPPED using..”
Likewise, avoid “good news” and “bad news” as blanket
terms. A cut in mortgage rates may
be “good news” for house-buyers – but it’s “bad news” for savers. Similarly,
holidaymakers may be delighted at the prospect of weeks without rain; but their
pleasure is unlikely to be shared by farmers –or umbrella manufacturers.
Again, just say what has happened (“Interest rates are down”, “The dry weather is set
to continue”, etc). Then let the audience decide whether this is “good news” or
“bad”. If you feel you must use either term, then there has to be a suitable
qualification (“—which is good news for house-buyers after three years of
rising mortgage rates”; “—which is bad news for farmers, who’ve been struggling
this summer after the driest spring on record”).
You will sometimes need to insert a phrase to
distance yourself from a sentiment being expressed. When we said
“The Turks believe Europe should spend more time asking why Greece has
been co-operating with international terrorism”, it sounded as though we
accepted the Turks’ interpretation of events. The solution is to distance us
from them by saying: “…asking why, as
they see it, Greece has been co-operating….” .
A related point here is that
any information which is not beyond
dispute must be clearly and immediately sourced. A story about Friends of
The Earth calling for more help with fuel bills included “About eight million
households in Britain suffer from fuel poverty” – in other words, presented as
though a fact. In the event, it turned out to be FoE’s estimate.
The rule has to be: if
you can check whether something is a fact, do so! And if you can’t, identify
the source.
Some words in common use are actually trade-names,
and should therefore be avoided. So
don’t say PORTAKABIN – say “portable building”. Don’t say “HOOVER” – say “vacuum” (verb) or “vacuum-cleaner”
(noun). Don’t say BIRO – say “ball-point”.
Use words devoid of geographical bias. It’s easy to fall into the trap of seeing the news
from a London perspective – with anything “north of Watford” getting short
shrift in geographical terms.
Example:
we spoke of “the opening of the huge new Bluewater shopping centre IN KENT and
the Buchanan Galleries IN SCOTLAND”.
And we reported on an
immunisation programme “in WALES and BRIGHTON”. Aim to be even-handed.
Many words are commonly misused. Others are often
used inconsistently. In either case, they pose a trap for the
unwary. Take care not to fall in! Examples include:
|
Words |
Usage |
|
Affect and Effect |
The
verb “affect” should not be confused with "effect". “Affect” means
“to have an influence on” (eg. “Wine does not affect me”); “effect” means “to
cause, accomplish” (eg “ A month at the Betty Ford Clinic effected my
recovery”). |
|
Anticipate and Expect |
“Anticipate”
is not synonymous with “expect”. If you anticipate something, you take action
in readiness for what you believe is going to happen. So, a footballer might
anticipate a pass by an opponent, and move into position to block it off. |
|
Centres
on/ around |
“Centres
AROUND” (as in our report on an
air-fares row which “centres AROUND the passenger service charge”) is
nonsensical. We should say “centres on” (similarly, avoid “based
AROUND”). |
|
Compare to |
Best
used only if you are stating similarity (“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s
day?” “Tony Blair’s political philosophy has been compared to that of
President Clinton.”). For the sake of
consistency across the site, we should use “compare with” in all other
contexts (“The price of eggs has doubled, compared with last year”). |
|
Different
from |
“Different
from” should be used everywhere, again for the sake of consistency.
So, do NOT say either “different TO” or “different THAN”. |
|
Disinterested and Uninterested |
“Disinterested”
is NOT synonymous with “uninterested”.
You are “disinterested” if you are taking an impartial stance, free of
self-interest (like, say, a tennis umpire). You are “uninterested” if you are
indifferent to what is going on. |
Effectively
and In Effect |
If
we are to avoid ambiguity, “effectively” should be used only to mean
“successfully”. It should NOT be used to mean “to all intents and purposes”.
If that is what you want to convey, use “in effect”. So: for instance, if we
want to suggest that the real power in a country lies with its Crown Prince,
we should say “The Crown Prince, in effect, rules the country”. To say he
rules it “effectively” could mean he’s actually on the throne – and doing
rather well. |
|
Ever |
“Ever”
means “always”, “time without end”. So to say this is “Shearer’s best season
ever” is a nonsense because he might improve on it in the future. |
|
Forensic |
“Forensic”
means “concerned with the courts”. So the people who study the bits and
pieces are not “forensic EXPERTS” – but “forensic scientists”. |
|
Fulsome |
“Fulsome”
does not mean “lavish” or “generous”. It means “nauseatingly over the top”,
“saccharine”. So “fulsome praise” is
a pejorative term. |
|
Imply and
Infer |
“Imply”
and “infer” are not interchangeable. You infer something from what someone
says; you imply something to someone else. |
|
Less and
Fewer |
“Less”
is not interchangeable with “fewer”.
Broadly, if you can count something, say “fewer” (“Manchester United
want to have fewer games next season”). If you can’t count it, go for “less”
(“Manchester United want to play less football next season”). It’s worth
noting that the logic still applies when you’re writing about percentages:
thus, you might correctly have “less than 30% of the hospital survived the
fire” or “fewer than 30% of the patients were rescued”. Note
that ages and heights take “less” (because you are dealing with what
mathematicians call “continuous data”, rather than “discrete data”). So: “Tom Thumb was less than three feet tall”, “Police say the man is less than thirty
years old”, etc. |
|
Refute
and Deny |
“Refute”
does not mean “deny”. It means “disprove”. So don’t say “X refuted the
accusation” unless you know unassailable proof was produced. Say “deny” or “reject”. |
|
That
and Which |
“That”
and “which” are not always interchangeable. Generally: “that” defines,
and “which” informs. So: “The house
that Jack built is to be knocked down” – which assumes we know Jack was the
builder, but reminds us, so as to ensure we know which house we’re talking
about. Compare: “The house, which
Jack built, is to be knocked down” – where the fact that Jack was the builder
is new information. |
|
Try
to/and... |
“Try
AND” is another nonsense (as when we spoke of Northern Ireland talks designed
“to try AND overcome the stalemate”). Correct usage is “try to”. |
Avoid words inappropriate to the context. Any word, however innocuous, is probably best
avoided in certain stories. A man
kicked by a horse is not ideally described as being in a STABLE condition. But
we did say that “The French courts have COME DOWN HARD on those setting off
avalanches”. And we had Geri Halliwell
FRONTING a campaign on breast cancer.
OK: you’ve got the appropriate words in mind to tell your story. Now comes the job of stringing them together…
As with individual words - keep it simple! We should
generally go for short sentences, because they are easier to digest at first
reading. In any case, you should avoid
long subordinate clauses which delay the reader from finding out what the story
is about (as in “The actor XX, who
appeared in more than two hundred films and was nominated for an Oscar on no
fewer than ten occasions, has died…”).
Stories peppered with commas are ugly. But do not be
tempted to dispense with too many.
They are often essential to making a story comprehensible at first reading, for
two reasons.
Firstly, the absence of a comma might lead the
reader to “misread” a story at the first attempt – something (s)he will not
be prepared to do very often before losing patience.
Example: “With the
millennium approaching the ambulance service..” conjured up an image of
ambulances somehow being singled out by the new century. Only with the insertion
of a comma was sanity restored: “With the millennium approaching, the ambulance
service is taking no chances…”
Secondly, the introduction of a few commas can make a
daunting block of text digestible.
Example (on a reported
sighting of Nessie): “It’s very far
out in the loch, we actually have a local expert in our office he comes from
Drumnadrochit on the shore of the loch and he said no-one would moor their boat
that far out, so it looks like humps but then most sightings do look that way,
but Nora Jones is certainly convinced, Alan Matheson, Scotland Online editor,
told the BBC”.
In fact, that needed both commas and full-stops inserted. This is often the case when you’re putting a
direct quote on the site, perhaps from a radio or TV interview. It
is frequently the pauses and inflections of spoken English which make it
comprehensible. You have to achieve the same comprehensibility through proper
use of punctuation.
Apostrophes can indicate that a letter has been omitted (“it’s hot today”; “Rock ’n’
roll”). They can also indicate possession—in which case, we should put the
apostrophe after the whole of the relevant noun eg “My brother’s cars” if you mean one brother ; “my brothers’ cars“
if you mean more than one brother. “My children’s toys” because “children” is
the plural of the noun. “St James’s Park” because James is a singular.
In practice, we are rather
cavalier in our approach.
Sometimes,
we leave out an apostrophe when it should be there.
Examples: After the European election, we had Margaret Becket saying, “ITS
actually difficult to get people to go out and vote”. We had the cricket World Cup opener “at LORDS”.
On other occasions, we use an apostrophe when
there’s no need.
Examples: We told how “Tiger WOODS’ faded away..”. We quoted Hugh Grant
talking about “LOT’S of messing about”.
We sometimes remember the apostrophe – but put it in the
wrong place:
Examples: Hollywood
personalities disappointed at their showing in a survey of “bankable stars”
were said to be looking forward to “next YEARS’ poll”. Another story recalled “the BEATLE’S Yellow
Submarine”.
The problem of apostrophes is minimised – because it is usually our style to avoid
contractions (DON’T, WOULDN’T, etc).
We spell the words out (“do not”, “would not”). But you may be obliged
to use one in a direct quote. In this case, remember that “its” requires
an apostrophe only where it is a contraction of “it is”. The Becket quote,
above, should have started “It’s”. There
is NO apostrophe when “its” indicates possession.
Example: “The morning meeting
brought its usual passionate exchanges.”
Hyphens should not be rejected out of hand!
The
headlines “Mother-to-be assaulted” and “Mother to be assaulted” are telling
very different stories – just as a “little used car” is rather different from a
“little-used car”. And, like commas, hyphens are often essential, if the text
is to make immediate sense.
Example:
The reader of the sentence, “The woman at the new house takes pride in her home
grown lettuces” may well think its sense is complete after the phrase “takes
pride in her home” – in which case, the final two words (grown lettuces)
require a complete re-evaluation. The time and frustration involved is
eliminated at a stroke by the insertion of a single hyphen (“home-grown”).
Also: don’t hesitate to use a “hanging” hyphen (eg “six-
and 10-year-olds”) if it helps the reader to make sense of the sentence.
So far, then: you’ve chosen the most appropriate words, sorted out your sentences, and used punctuation to optimum effect. All you have to do now (assuming you’ve made the right news judgements!) is to ensure you are using grammar as you should be!
This is not to suggest there is a mass of constraints, to inhibit the telling of the tale. Contrary to popular belief, there is no ban on introducing a sentence with the words “But” and “And”, or on ending a sentence with a preposition (in fact, a preposition is often an ideal word to end a sentence with!). There is not even an absolute ban on the dreaded “split infinitive” (as in “to BOLDLY go”): the principle to follow here is that the split infinitive can usually be avoided; but if it appears to be the natural and most economical way of expressing something (“Open champion Paul Lawrie expects his earnings to more than double”) – then go for it!
However, there are some common pitfalls which SHOULD be avoided….
Getting this wrong has the potential to make your
stories at best difficult, at worst baffling.
But the basic rule is quite simple. You have a choice of introducing a
quotation with a present tense verb (as in “He says”), the so-called “perfect”
tense” (“He has said”), or the “aorist” past tense ( “He said”). It is your
choice which determines whether or not you have to change the tenses used within
the quotation.
For example: let’s imagine
Tony Blair tells us “I am resigning” (ie
he uses the present tense). If
you choose to introduce this with either the present or the perfect tense, then
you don’t have to change the tense within the quotation. Your text could
correctly say either “Tony Blair says he is resigning” or “Tony Blair has said
he is resigning”. In other words, in
each case the present tense he used is retained. On the other hand, if you opt for the introductory verb in any
other past tense, then you have to “knock back” by one tense from that used
in the original. Our example therefore becomes: “Mr Blair said he was resigning”.
Logically, if Mr Blair had continued “I saw
the Queen on Tuesday”, then we would need to “knock back” so as to write
“Mr Blair said he had seen the Queen on Tuesday”.
(As for remarks looking to
future events, then “will” or “shall” should not survive into reported speech
which is introduced by “He said”, etc.
Thus: if Mr B said “I will see
the Queen later in the week”, then this would appear on the site as ”Mr Blair
said he would see the Queen later in the week”).
We treat companies, governments and other bodies as
singular (“The government is
to outlaw strike action”). The
exceptions are the police and sports teams (“The police have asked
for better protection against strikers”; “Arsenal have signed a new
striker”).
That apart, the main rule is: “Be consistent!” It is a rule we
often forget. For example;
·
“The Premier League IS
to hold talks, in the wake of the resignation of THEIR chairman.”
·
"Oxfam “SAYS
education is the single most important issue – THEY say that every child…”.
·
And “The National Gallery IS so confident… THEY
will be opening late..”.
Take care not to allow the verb to be 'corrupted' by
the presence of a plural somewhere nearby.
Example: We said, “The
magnitude of the Serb attacks HAVE prompted fears..” – the plural presumably
prompted by the plural “attacks”, even though the subject, “magnitude”, is
actually singular.
Note that “media” is a plural (singular, “medium”). Likewise, “bacteria”
(singular, “bacterium”). Not to mention “criteria” (singular, “criterion”).
Also, “paratrooper” is a
singular; the plural is “paratroops”. “Water cannon” is the same, singular or
plural.
As well as using the Spellchecker, you MUST also read
your scripts at least twice –and then again! Despite that, our recent
output has included:
|
Actually Used |
Correct
Spelling |
|
FUELED |
fuelled |
|
INDESTRUCTABLE |
indestructible |
|
HYGEINE |
hygiene |
|
MOMENTO |
memento |
|
HEROS |
heroes |
|
DISASTEROUS |
disastrous |
|
LIGHTENING |
lightning |
We sometimes fail to
distinguish between “practise” (the verb) and “practice”(the noun).
As a general rule, refer to the Oxford English
Dictionary – and where there is an option, choose the first use (hence, we say “protester” and not “PROTESTOR”; “medieval” and not
“MEDIAEVAL”; “focused”/”focusing” and not “FOCUSSED”/”FOCUSSING”).
The exception is
“-ize”. We use “-ise”. Hence: not “RECOGNIZE” – but “recognise”. Not
“NATIONALIZE” – but “nationalise”.
Not: “SPECIALIZE” – but
“specialise”. It is also our
style not to use “x” in the middle of a word, where there is an alternative
spelling of “ct”. So: not “INFLEXION” – but “inflection”.
Not “REFLEXION” – but
“reflection”. Not “CONNEXION” –
but “connection”.
Take care not to pick up American spelling. We should not have referred to “Radio 4’s Today
PROGRAM” (“programme” is the spelling to go for – unless you’re talking about a
computer program); nor should we have spoken of the “UK DEFENSE Secretary”, or
of the Orthodox Patriarch in Armenia having a “TUMOR” (“tumour”). There is an exception, though: if you use
official names including American spelling, such as Kennedy Space Center,
then you should stick with the US spelling – but only when using the full name.
In a second reference (without the full title), you should use the UK spelling
(“The centre has announced that ..”).
American spelling often doubles the consonant in a past tense – as in,
for example, “BENEFITTED”. We should
say “benefited”.
Other words commonly misspelt include “demonstrator”, “millennium”, “definitely”,
“graffiti”, “instil”, “liaison”,
“unnecessary”, “diarrhoea”, “instalment”, “archaeology”, “haemorrhage”.
Take extra care with proper names, which are a particular headache on the site –
especially foreign ones. In a single football match report, we came up
with “GERRARD Houllier” (Gerard), “Gunnar
HALLLE” (Halle), “Karl-Heinz REIDLE” (Riedle), and “Jimmy Floyd HASELBAINK” (Hasselbaink).
And it does nothing for our credibility within the BBC if we’re sloppy with
the names of our own people. Yet we had “Terry STIASTRY”(Stiasny), as well
as “JOHN Silverman” (Jon).
Be
warned, incidentally, that a radio or TV running order is rarely the best place
to check the spelling of a proper name.
Except when ASTONs are required, broadcasters tend to favour the
phonetic.
The best advice on spelling is: once you’re confident there are no mistakes,
recruit a second pair of eyes – to spot the ones you’ve missed.
Typographical errors (or “literals”) are almost inevitable when you are first writing a story, especially if you’re writing against the clock. But they need never reach the site - where readers tell us they do find them very disconcerting.
When you give your script
that final check, watch out too for any
missing letters and words, or extra words and letters. We are definitely
getting on top of this problem; but literals remain all too common.
Once readers start concentrating on how we are
telling our stories, then they are no longer concentrating on what we are
telling them - and they will
probably soon lose interest. So we should make the effort to maintain a
consistency of style. For example: we had a story about Rupert Murdoch’s
organisation –which (correctly) twice referred to “News Corp.” (ie with a full stop) and three times to “News
Corp” (without the full stop). Similarly, India’s long-range missile was
“Agni-2” at first reference – but “Agni-11” at second. On the exploration of
space, we had both the “Serendip project” and “SERENDIP”. The agencies will often be at odds in such circumstances; we shouldn’t
be.
Getting this wrong is a much bigger danger, because
it immediately threatens our credibility.
We had an intro “Some black
holes are bright pink, Australian astronomers have discovered”, with a direct
quote a few sentences later: “We’re pretty certain it isn’t the black holes
that are pink”.
More worryingly, the site
featured a story that junior doctors were meeting “with the possibility of
strike action looming” – accompanied by a Richard Hannaford voice insert,
declaring that there was “NO likelihood of strike action”. And we had a Damon
Hill story mentioning his “106-race career” – accompanied by a video caption
referring to his “107-race career”.
As for picture captions: we
had a story about the auctioning of Elizabeth Taylor’s “SLEEVELESS crepe dress”
– alongside a picture of a dress which most definitely had sleeves.
The concluding point in this section, therefore, is the one it began with: it is essential to check EVERYTHING – text, captions, pictures, video and audio -- to be sure that the final product is coherent, consistent and “a good read”.