How long is too long?

Young writers should continue writing. There's a value in that, in advancing skill and honing craft but also in establishing ability to the public and prospective employers. Young writers should continue pouring their hearts into everything they write, perfecting every 8-inch news update.

But that doesn't require overwriting. Showy writing is not often good writing. Young writers tend to learn the difference through trial and error and through tough editing. Those things take time. Any internship worth a damn will take that time, will allow editors to work one-on-one with writers, explaining each decision in detail. Entry-level jobs seldom have that manpower for that kind of editing, which puts the onus even more on internships to shape young journalists.

That said, time and place is important. Even the most talented college student needs to grasp that the prep gamer they're sending in on deadline needs to be on time, to length and accurate above all else. I don't came how fucking good your feature about the women's soccer player whose parents died in a car crash when she was 6 was for your student newpaper. You're being asked to cover a high school game. You're being asked for 10 inches of accurate, readable copy by 9:40 p.m. If you write something terrific in those 10 inches, more power to you. But if you write something terrific and spell two kids' names wrong, you've failed. If you write something terrific but it's 16 inches, you've failed. If you write something terrific and send it in at 9:48 p.m., you've failed.

Internships are learning experiences built to improve young journalists, but they must do so by treating those college students as real journalists. There are times and places for creativity to shine. There are times and places for efficiency to shine.

Jobs are trickier. Small publications don't exist for the purpose of training young journalists and helping them move on to bigger and better things. They must serve readerships as best they can. The hope is the management would be competent enough to understand each employee and what the readership wants. As Alma has stressed, there is a market for smart sports writing. That market runs deeper than Grantland.com. But there also is a market for covering nuts and bolts. That market is larger.

There are fantastic writers on the New York Jets beat right now. And some of them are rolling their eyes as their bosses ask for another Tim Tebow/Mark Sanchez story. They're suggesting that their talents are being wasted. They're wrong.

That Tim Tebow/Mark Sanchez story tracks better with readers. Journalists are nothing without readers. We depict journalism as an art form, but it's more architecture than poetry. Planning foundations and considering ease of use are top priorities, and only those capable in the practical realms get to move on to building fancy shit to build fancy shit. We work in a service industry.

And sometimes the service provided is a 10-inch high school field hockey game story without misspelled names that fills the space it was given and doesn't end awkwardly and reaches its readers on time.

 

In short, experience will teach you how to write tighter and better.

 

guess what, champ? i've read thousands of gamers on friday nights. from old burn outs, to waste-of-time stringers, to effing studs. and guess what? nobody is changing the fucking world with friday-night gamers. not. one. single. person.
stop acting as though every word you write is special. in fact, you're pathetic because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this topic.
move along.

 

DD, I take what you say with more than a grain of salt. I know you have some gravitas when it comes to this.

 

Versatile,

I like much of what you wrote, but this phrase...

...is just not terribly true. Often times, the most talented young writers bypass all stages of practicality and go straight to the top beats, where they sink or swim based on their ability to turn a phrase, make a lucid argument, etc.

 

What's "often"? Yes, Pablo Torre exists. But I would say, relative to where they will end up, even Tyler Dunne and other Young Fucking Studs must work their way to better jobs.

 

Absolutely. If you can't get the facts correct, you're not a good reporter. There are too many out there who let facts get in the way of telling a story.

 

It may sound like I'm sitting on both sides of the fence here, but I can't entirely agree with that.

The turn of a phrase IS what separates some writers in the climb up the ladder.

 

Actually you are right where you are perched Shot. There have been times when I've been a better reporter than a writer and vice versa. The trick is knowing WHEN to be a reporter or a writer.

 

There is room for both. If you're a real aggressive type, there will be opportunities to pitch features, enterprise and such where you can write long and showcase your poetic prose.

But schedule that stuff in advance. Don't drop it on the poor desk editor at 9 p.m. AFTER he/she has already budgeted space for the night's section unless it is truly unexpected breaking news.

 

Wanted to add a little more.
I worked the desk four nights a week for more than 10 years, including every Friday and every Saturday that wasn't college football season. We now have a universal desk, which is wonderful because I'm off it, even though I lost a writer in the deal, and I still begin the pages many nights because I know what I want and the presentation is every bit as important to me as the words in the stories.

With that in mind, if I needed 400 words, I'd tell somebody don't go more than 450, or if I had room for 500 I might not tell them anything. Also, of course, there were always times where I was expecting 550 or so for an advance/feature and was surprised with 750, and while I might have been able to fit 600 and still be true to my design, which at some level was non-negotiable (although another one of my mantras is "Get the cover right and make it work inside"), I also knew that even on deadline, I could make it work. I guess my point is, I reject the idea that, on the desk, you can't adjust quickly.

You can almost always cut quotes down and lose nothing. Invariably, writers use them in the name of representation, but not in the name of being crucial to the story. Cut them. Or cut them in half. Cut the segues and transitions. Frequently, they're just unnecessary. It's true, writers who go with play by play or who write a game chronologically drive me bananas, so, too do people who work on the desk and only understand how to cut a story from the bottom up.

When I was on the desk, I read a story before I placed it an I knew the space and knew how long the story was when I got it and that guided my edits. I might scroll to the bottom and see how much filler their was, but I took a scalpel (not an axe) to every part of the story. That's part of being on the desk; yes, even on deadline.

 

Totally agree that it's better to edit with a scalpel rather than just cut from the bottom. The catch is that good editing --- like good writing --- takes time. And sometimes time is a luxury you don't have with the printed page, especially when you are dealing with night game stories.