Co-bylines

[Joe Williams]

Do co-bylines suck worse for the writers or the readers? I think they're bad on both fronts.

The thread on AG Sulzberger and posts noting the frequency of shared bylines made me realize how wimpy I find those things. If I'm one of the bylines, I'm not liking it because no one really knows whose work is whose, who contributed what to the whole. If I'm reading the story, I don't know who's really responsible for any content therein. It's like having two people talking to me at the same time. Sort of, anyway.

Yet I feel like there's a growing number of shared bylines, maybe because people who blog and people who write for print are having to team up on stuff. I know of one such tandem, covering a major beat, where the partners made a pact to always have co-bylines, to prove some inane point to management that was lost on me.

I understand the need once in a while, if one reporter truly contributes something that only he/she could have gotten or something that comes from way out in left field. But I'm seeing co-bylines on everything short of game stories these days, or so it seems, certainly a lot more often in sports news.

 

[PeteyPirate]

As a reader, I don't understand why it would bother you.

 

[RickStain]

Bylines aren't for readers.

Shared bylines suck for writers.

 

[spnited]

I don't think readers care at all if there is a byline, a double byline, 9 bylines or no byline.

 

[spnited]

Why do they suck for writers, Rick?

 

[RickStain]

Why do they suck for writers, Rick?

Pretty much ruins any chance of using it as a clip. Otherwise, pretty much irrelevant. Guess "suck" is overstating it.

 

[Joe Williams]

As a reader, I don't understand why it would bother you.

Well, I guess it bothers me as a reader who does this sort of work for a living. As a result, I pay more attention to bylines than the average customer. Seeing two always feels, I don't know, off somehow. In terms of the old "do your own work" orders from grade school.

 

[spnited]

Oh, I forgot. The reason for every story and every byline is "can I use this for a clip."


Pretty much irrelelvant sums it up.

 

[RickStain]

Oh, I forgot. The reason for every story and every byline is "can I use this for a clip."


Pretty much irrelelvant sums it up.

Is there any other reason for bylines? I've never found them to be particularly important in general.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

I think only books should be co-written. At least in that scenario the subject is vast and complex enough that one person can be sent to investigate one far corner of the matter and devote the proper time and concentration.

With newspapers, too many cooks in a small(er) kitchen. And that's before the editing process.

 

[mustangj17]

I understand the need for articles that are co-written. Maybe someone starts on a story that isn't their beat because the beat writer was sick, on another story, out of town, o0r out of the office and then the beat writer finishes up. Or just if it is a lot of work that needs to be done quickly.

No more than two though. I hate reading those bylines with four writers. Of course, I don't make these rules.

 

[thesnowman]

Oh, I forgot. The reason for every story and every byline is "can I use this for a clip."


Pretty much irrelelvant sums it up.

Is there any other reason for bylines? I've never found them to be particularly important in general.

Accountability.

Highest-profile story I'd written (up until last year) had a shared byline with two other writers. I couldn't have cared less.

 

[spnited]

I think only books should be co-written. At least in that scenario the subject is vast and complex enough that one person can be sent to investigate one far corner of the matter and devote the proper time and concentration.

With newspapers, too many cooks in a small(er) kitchen. And that's before the editing process.

Woodward and Bernstein disagree.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Well, that was 35 years ago. And with far bigger ramifications than whether some overpaid overvalued blockhead was injected in the ass with steroids.

All things being equal, if Watergate happened now, it would not break in newsprint. It might be in a million bits and pieces across the blogosphere, or twittered to death.

 

[thesnowman]

But where else is someone going to be able to get all those pieces, and then some, in one credible place?
/idealist'd

 

[nmmetsfan]

Oh, I forgot. The reason for every story and every byline is "can I use this for a clip."


Pretty much irrelelvant sums it up.

Is there any other reason for bylines? I've never found them to be particularly important in general.

Some readers do follow specific writers/reporters. Before I broke into the biz, I knew if it had Rick Reilly on the front, it'd be worth my time. That was back when he was a must read.

 

[Sp0rtScribe]

Oh, I forgot. The reason for every story and every byline is "can I use this for a clip."


Pretty much irrelelvant sums it up.

Is there any other reason for bylines? I've never found them to be particularly important in general.

Some readers do follow specific writers/reporters. Before I broke into the biz, I knew if it had Rick Reilly on the front, it'd be worth my time. That was back when he was a must read.

Agree, I think the loyal readers do care if a particular writer has the byline on a story. For example, if Peter Gammons writes a Red Sox story, I think Sox fans and baseball loyalists will read it without thinking twice, whereas they might not care so much if there's a specific "Boston Globe staff" attribution or something to that effect.

 

[YankeeFan]

I've seen a lot of articles in the Times where at the end, it will say something like, "additional reporting by John Q. Public in Washington, DC."

I think this makes sense for a story that may have elements of it breaking in various places. But the reader still knows who did the main reporting and who wrote it up.

I'm not sure how the work is divided in a co-bylined story.

 

[JakeandElwood]

I don't know how many readers would care to look at this, but you could post something on a newspaper blog or something else like twitter online saying who did what in the article if it's that important.

 

[Joe Williams]

Posts here make me wonder: Do copy editors like or dislike bylines for writers? A lot of times, the copy editor saves the writer's ass on some key point but remains anonymous to the readers. Other times, a copy editor contributes more to the final version than another writer who ends up with a co-byline. And the comment above about using stories for clips suggests that maybe there is a little resentment.

I've heard people in this biz suggest that every story of significant length carry a tagline like "Edited by..." much the way it could have "Additional reporting by..." Would that appeal to people in this business, whether writers or copy editors?

BTW, I wasn't thinking of a "clips" situation at all when I started the thread. But I suppose this would explain sending a job interviewee unexpectedly to cover a game, so you could see his/her raw copy, judge how they are on deadline -- and see how they are when they fly solo. [/crossthreading]