Ages

[Matt1735]

Having a discussion in my shop (trade magazine, not newspaper, although we do report news along with features and educational columns)

What is the value of people's ages in features and columns?

Please offer your opinions on what it adds or if it isn't needed or shouldn't be there.

 

[FileNotFound]

It goes a long way toward determining a person's credibility when speaking on a particular subject. For instance, if Some Body, 46, is talking about his experience selling widgets in 1980, it gives the reader a chance to determine, "Hey, Mr. Body was in junior high in 1980." It's also important as an identifying detail, especially in a column or profile.

 

[Riptide]

Also, because details count. Age should be in almost every story.
Near the top, too. Establish the identifying characteristics early.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Not before race. [/YankeeFan]

 

[Editude]

Along with middle initials, age is another detail we can't seem to get enough of. That makes getting them wrong in obituaries especially unfortunate.

 

[reformedhack]

It's not mandatory in every story, and indeed sometimes looks ridiculous if you include it.

If it adds context, include the age. If it's not critical, leave it out.

• Adds context: "This is the worst drought I've ever seen," said John Smith, an 87-year-old Farmville native.

• Leave it out: "We had no other options than to close the factory," said Podunk Industries CEO Mary Jones, 48.

If you're writing a feature about somebody, then, yes, include the age if you can. Readers want to get a better idea of who you're writing about. Ideally, in a feature story, you'll avoid dropping someone's age the same way you'd toss it into a news story. Try to find something that makes the age relevant to your story, rather than a random, parenthetical fact.

 

[Roscablo]

I wrote a feature on a women's bowler one time who had done pretty well at various levels. She absolutely refused to give her age -- one of those people that are embarrassed by it, whatever. While it was relevant to the story especially considering there was info on how long she'd been doing it, the leagues she was in, etc. I didn't push her. Why? She doesn't want it, whatever. Her photo accompanied and it's not like there wouldn't be anyone who knows her read it. Conclusions could be drawn. Most probably wouldn't even notice. My editor just would not leave it be. Like it was killing the story. Kept pressing me, her, everyone who would listen. Eventually added a line, "Susie Bowler, who refused to give her age ..." Thought that was kind of over the top. Wonder if that changed her mind on giving ages after that?

 

[reformedhack]

I think your editor was wrong here, Roscablo, and I think you did the best you could under the circumstances by simply mentioning how long she had been bowling. His/her making you add the line about refusing to give her age was wrong for two reasons:

• It made her look like she was hiding something, and such a snarky indictment on a light feature -- a feature! -- was just about the worst way to handle it.

• "Refused" is loaded language unless you're dealing with someone who's accountable to the public; "declined" is a better choice for a private citizen who has that right and that option, and would have given you a more graceful way around it.

 

[Matt1735]

I wrote a feature on a women's bowler one time who had done pretty well at various levels. She absolutely refused to give her age -- one of those people that are embarrassed by it, whatever. While it was relevant to the story especially considering there was info on how long she'd been doing it, the leagues she was in, etc. I didn't push her. Why? She doesn't want it, whatever. Her photo accompanied and it's not like there wouldn't be anyone who knows her read it. Conclusions could be drawn. Most probably wouldn't even notice. My editor just would not leave it be. Like it was killing the story. Kept pressing me, her, everyone who would listen. Eventually added a line, "Susie Bowler, who refused to give her age ..." Thought that was kind of over the top. Wonder if that changed her mind on giving ages after that?

It is a very similar instance — someone declining — that started the discussion here. For the story in question, it's a non-relevant detail (my opinion) but there are some among us who believe it should be in every story.

Really appreciate the feedback/discussion and hope there's more to come!

 

[MisterCreosote]

I'd venture to guess the age of a subject is irrelevant 80 to 90 percent of the time.

EDIT: I should add that ages should be included in things like police blotter because, while they're mostly irrelevant there, too, they serve to clarify the perp's identity.

 

[micropolitan guy]

It also allows the reader to measure his/her accomplishments (or whatever the story is about) against those of the subject of the story.

When I read about some 25-year-old whiz kid, it makes me think about what I was doing when I was 25.

 

[albert77]

The only time I feel like age is an important detail in sports stories is in a feature (and then only if it's truly relevant) and in a coaching hire story, where it gives you a good feel for the person's experience (or lack thereof) and expected maturity level.

 

[Walter Burns]

It's also a potential hedge against libel. If you write that John Smith, 25, was arrested for something, then you make it that much more difficult for 43-year-old John Smith to sue you, saying his reputation was damaged by the story.

 

[deskslave]

I think your editor was wrong here, Roscablo, and I think you did the best you could under the circumstances by simply mentioning how long she had been bowling. His/her making you add the line about refusing to give her age was wrong for two reasons:

• It made her look like she was hiding something, and such a snarky indictment on a light feature -- a feature! -- was just about the worst way to handle it.

• "Refused" is loaded language unless you're dealing with someone who's accountable to the public; "declined" is a better choice for a private citizen who has that right and that option, and would have given you a more graceful way around it.

Agreed. At the very least, declined is better, and even better than that would be (a) leave it out, because who cares or (b) have a bit of fun with it. "Bowler, who keeps her age a closely guarded secret -- 'old enough to know better,' she said with a wink -- "

 

[Football_Bat]

You can find just about anybody's age by looking it up on the Internet, if you know the name and the town where they live.

 

[Roscablo]

I think your editor was wrong here, Roscablo, and I think you did the best you could under the circumstances by simply mentioning how long she had been bowling. His/her making you add the line about refusing to give her age was wrong for two reasons:

• It made her look like she was hiding something, and such a snarky indictment on a light feature -- a feature! -- was just about the worst way to handle it.

• "Refused" is loaded language unless you're dealing with someone who's accountable to the public; "declined" is a better choice for a private citizen who has that right and that option, and would have given you a more graceful way around it.

Agreed. At the very least, declined is better, and even better than that would be (a) leave it out, because who cares or (b) have a bit of fun with it. "Bowler, who keeps her age a closely guarded secret -- 'old enough to know better,' she said with a wink -- "

He added it in the editing process. I thought it was a slap in the face to her and a little over the top. The tone didn't match the rest of it. It's like it gave him some power or something. It really made him mad. For something silly like a fun feature. She was good and had done well on the national level, but she wasn't making millions or anything. Not the end of the world and for it was I think you have to respect people when are shy or timid about something. It's not like she was hiding that she robbed a bank.

 

[I'll never tell]

I agree it's all about context. But I'm not one who litters game stories with senior, junior, sophomore, redshirt junior (when did this become a thing?), etc. When I was writing all the time, I probably didn't use them enough.

Sometimes I'll edit it out of AP copy, but I always leave it for Geezers Tour in the golf roundups. Because I do find it interesting, or maybe it's because 55 doesn't seem nearly as old anymore, making me think the future still holds hope.

Side rant: What I don't get, is a photo cutline, why do I care where in the hell is a golfer or tennis player is from? I get it with Davis Cup events, or whatever, but random tournaments?

 

[BDC99]

I'd also say that age is irrelevant probably 80 or 90 percent of the time. It should be used as an identifying characteristic in crime stories and there is nothing wrong with having it in a feature in most cases. I find it useful a lot in sports, when you are talking about prospects or veteran players and how old they are matters. If read that the local NHL team signed Jaromir Jagr, I'd sure expect the age to be in there.

 

[Riptide]

I disagree. Age is one of the most important identifiers.
The best reporters nail all the details. It was taught this way in better times.

 

[BDC99]

Shouldn't way it is irrelevant, just not necessary in a lot of cases. The only time I think it is definitely needed are in cases where it adds context or identity.