Kiss today goodbye ...

Do you think it's a bad thing for readers, or just not a good thing?

 

Honestly, I haven't given it much thought until this thread. The last time I worked at a daily newspaper that also had a website was nearly five years ago. My most recent job was at a web-only place that had this rule in its style guide:

Understanding we're read all over the world, and our today could be somebody's yesterday, always write the day of the week. Exception: Cover stories based on events happening now.

So I haven't had to have an opinion on this for five years. I won't pretend to be 100 percent certain on much of the conversation because, frankly, I've grown weary of how many people on this board are 100 percent certain about everything. But I do wonder. I think our industry has a history of thinking readers read and think like we do, and they don't.

I do think if you're Joe Reader and have been reading a daily newspaper for 20, 30, maybe 40 years, you're accustomed to seeing "today" in a Monday paper about something happening on the day of publication. It's the way you're conditioned to read. Chances are if you see a "Monday" reference in the Monday paper, you think it's about the previous Monday, or the next, or that someone messed up.

I'm just asking -- not 100 percent certain, mind you -- but isn't it possible longtime readers (and by that I mean readers) would find it jarring and a tad confusing to suddenly never see "today" in print? To instead see the day of the week even if it's that day? And while we're at it, are we headed toward using days + dates a lot more? The first PTA meeting of the school year is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Monday, Aug. 26. We'd never have published that at the daily newspapers I've worked at, but if we're going all-Monday all the time, isn't that inevitable?

We also seem to be talking about places where stories are written and edited for print, then tweaked for the web after print deadline. More of my friends work instead at places where stories are written for the web first, THEN edited after going live, then reworked or edited for print last. Lots of variables here. And from what I've seen of web writing, it does not always make for a good read in print, especially not the next morning. Not every place has the personnel to crank out distinctly different versions for web and print, so there's that. And as we've discussed many times on here, there's no one-size-fits-all solution. What works at The New York Times isn't necessarily the right approach for the Podunk Occasional.

But I'm rambling. To answer your question, I'm not sure, but I think it would be bad for readers -- at the very least, an awkward adjustment. Still mulling. It's an issue that hasn't been on my radar in a long time. And the last time I seriously considered it, I actually believed grammar and style and copy editing had a place -- a future -- in the business. Whatever our business is now, I'm no longer as sure anymore.

So there's my answer, with all of those qualifiers dropped into it.

 

I appreciate your eloquent response. But it's more jarring to read "today" online when referring to "tomorrow" than to read the day of the week in print.

It's that simple. Until someone creates a macro that automatically changes "today" to the day of the week online, human error needs to be accounted for.

 

I don't think the macro would help, because in my experience, even a simple change from today to Monday can involve more contextual changes. A macro would not take care of that. Some things will always need humans.

Can't say I see "today" online when it means "tomorrow" as often as you do, but if you see it often, I can understand your take.

 

Part of my job is regularly reading other newspapers. I see it wrong about 25 percent of the time. It's a very, very easy thing to gloss over.

Also, while I think it's easy for us to assume readers think like us, it's also easy for us to assume readers are inflexible. We tend to fail to give readers enough credit. People who read print newspapers are more literate than the average population. That's been proven in more than enough studies and has a sound logical basis. Let's not undermine them, create more work for ourselves and allow sloppy inaccuracies on our (now-)primary platform.

Again, though, I don't expect my bosses ever to make this change.

 

Understood.

 

It may well be that using the date, rather than the day of the week, is the better solution. But I don't think you need to say "Monday, Aug. 26". Why not just say "Aug. 26"?

Most websites do have date/time stamps, but they're often small, inconveniently sited, etc. And if the "today" is at the bottom of the page, you may well not even be able to see the stamp at the top.

 

At the database shop I work at, the format for ANY date is month, day, year. Of course, we're archiving, so it's different, but it certainly eliminates confusion.

 

This is so irrelevant.

The date is not necessary because most stories don't have a shelflife beyond two or three days. Yes, they exist in the ether forever, but if you're reading an old story, that's on you. You didn't find it through the typical channels. Moreover, how many people are consistently aware, without peeking or thinking too hard, of the date everyday? I think using dates when that part of the perspective is properly labeled is overthinking.

 

In my career I've been as religious as anyone at following conventions like these, but I do think this is an area where we all could afford to loosen our tie a bit. I know if I'm reading another paper and the date of an event is far enough in the future I've found myself thinking, "Now, what day of the week is Nov. 4?" You don't have to answer that if you read a news release or even a reader submission. They don't know our rules, so they'll write Monday, Nov. 4. You know the answer without having to look it up. The way newspapers do it, hey, you're on your own. Look it up, pal.

I know this is heresy, and I'm braced for the push-back, but sometimes I think some of our rules we get most militant about are less than reader-friendly. If we're striking "today" out of copy, why not also make a policy change about saying Monday, Nov. 4? We've already loosened the tie a tad. A bit more won't kill us, and it could save the reader the time it takes to look at a calendar. Yes, we're adding a word -- oh, the horror -- but I think some of our rules are worth revisiting in the digital age, and to me, this is one of them.

 

My shop uses the day of the week, never today.

 

Not long ago, the editing team I was on discussed the style rule I quoted earlier in the thread about never using "today." We had some fun with lyrics of songs that used "today" and "tonight" and other variations and imagined if our style had been enforced during the writing of the songs.

The first one I thought of:

"We've got Monday night / Who needs Tuesday / Let's make it last / Let's find a way."