Improving Grammar for new job

[Leaver?]

Making the move back into the industry, but haven't subbed for a while and I need to brush up on grammar etc.
Are there any online resources to hand or a list of the most common errors etc found on sportsdesks?

 

[jr/shotglass]

http://www.apstylebook.com/

Worth the $25/year.

 

[Versatile]

http://www.amazon.com/Words-John-B-Bremner/dp/0231044933

Words on Words by John B. Bremner. It's the seminal book on usage and modern language.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Here's the method I use. I didn't invent it, someone taught it to me. Start with the A's and B's in the AP and/or in-house stylebook, read one or two chapters, item by item, per night. That will take a few weeks. Repeat every 12 to 18 months.

Every three to five years or so depending when you think you need to, read Zinsser's "On Writing Well" and Bernstein's "The Careful Writer."

If you have any of Kenn Finkel's old API sports copy editing seminar handouts, or know someone who does, these are valuable every year or two. But it is possible to take them too literally.

Lots of good sources out there. Bill Walsh's books are good. Never been much of a Strunk & White guy, but that's not to say they aren't good, just that I'm not obsessive enough to read everything and I tend to "dance with the one that brung ya," using the material that my mentors shoved toward me when I was a kid.

 

[Versatile]

The Careful Writer is another great suggestion. I've only skimmed it, but I've been meaning to buy it for a few years now. Today might as well be the day.

 

[Stitch]

You can't go wrong going with this route.

http://www.amazon.com/So-Far-Kelsey-Grammer/dp/0451186052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340822445&sr=1-1&keywords=kelsey+grammer

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

That said, the cleaning up of language is kind of an autopilot thing once you reach a certain level of experience. What impresses me in a sports copy editor is someone who might not hairsplit on nuances but takes a bigger-picture approach to editing. Factual accuracy -- making sure the final score is correct not only in the lede staff-written game story but in each scoreline of a roundup. Ability to lead a roundup or notebook with the most interesting item and take an inventive but not cryptic angle on the hed. Ability to help the writer, especially an inexperienced one -- work with him/her -- on tone and direction and content. Challenge writing that smoothly and entertainingly says absolutely nothing. Et cetera. As a veteran slot guy, I can live with someone who fails to change "following" to "after" and "which" to "that" and "prior to" to "before," but I want them alert to the factual and conceptual stuff that will attract negative attention from readers, sources and glass offices. Actively seek out factual errors. Was so-and-so really traded in 1999 or was it actually 1998? Show a grasp of the big picture. Is this story saying exactly the same thing we reported yesterday or last week -- do we need to tweak the angle/hed to focus more on what's new?

 

[Ace]

That said, the cleaning up of language is kind of an autopilot thing once you reach a certain level of experience. What impresses me in a sports copy editor is someone who might not hairsplit on nuances but takes a bigger-picture approach to editing. Factual accuracy -- making sure the final score is correct not only in the lede staff-written game story but in each scoreline of a roundup. Ability to lead a roundup or notebook with the most interesting item and take an inventive but not cryptic angle on the hed. Ability to help the writer, especially an inexperienced one -- work with him/her -- on tone and direction and content. Challenge writing that smoothly and entertainingly says absolutely nothing. Et cetera. As a veteran slot guy, I can live with someone who fails to change "following" to "after" and "which" to "that" and "prior to" to "before," but I want them alert to the factual and conceptual stuff that will attract negative attention from readers, sources and glass offices. Actively seek out factual errors. Was so-and-so really traded in 1999 or was it actually 1998? Show a grasp of the big picture. Is this story saying exactly the same thing we reported yesterday or last week -- do we need to tweak the angle/hed to focus more on what's new?

Well put.

And the most common errors are most likely bad names and factual errors.

 

[SFIND]

Purdue's OWL website has anything and everything on writing. Here's the grammar section: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/1/5/

The Elements of Style would be well worth the read for a refresher on grammar.

Beyond getting an updated stylebook, I'd also suggest getting the AP's new style spell-check plugin for Microsoft Word. I love it.

 

[jr/shotglass]

That said, the cleaning up of language is kind of an autopilot thing once you reach a certain level of experience. What impresses me in a sports copy editor is someone who might not hairsplit on nuances but takes a bigger-picture approach to editing. Factual accuracy -- making sure the final score is correct not only in the lede staff-written game story but in each scoreline of a roundup. Ability to lead a roundup or notebook with the most interesting item and take an inventive but not cryptic angle on the hed. Ability to help the writer, especially an inexperienced one -- work with him/her -- on tone and direction and content. Challenge writing that smoothly and entertainingly says absolutely nothing. Et cetera. As a veteran slot guy, I can live with someone who fails to change "following" to "after" and "which" to "that" and "prior to" to "before," but I want them alert to the factual and conceptual stuff that will attract negative attention from readers, sources and glass offices. Actively seek out factual errors. Was so-and-so really traded in 1999 or was it actually 1998? Show a grasp of the big picture. Is this story saying exactly the same thing we reported yesterday or last week -- do we need to tweak the angle/hed to focus more on what's new?

It's been said before, but this is the type of slot man every sports desk should have.

 

[JJHHI]

That said, the cleaning up of language is kind of an autopilot thing once you reach a certain level of experience. What impresses me in a sports copy editor is someone who might not hairsplit on nuances but takes a bigger-picture approach to editing. Factual accuracy -- making sure the final score is correct not only in the lede staff-written game story but in each scoreline of a roundup. Ability to lead a roundup or notebook with the most interesting item and take an inventive but not cryptic angle on the hed. Ability to help the writer, especially an inexperienced one -- work with him/her -- on tone and direction and content. Challenge writing that smoothly and entertainingly says absolutely nothing. Et cetera. As a veteran slot guy, I can live with someone who fails to change "following" to "after" and "which" to "that" and "prior to" to "before," but I want them alert to the factual and conceptual stuff that will attract negative attention from readers, sources and glass offices. Actively seek out factual errors. Was so-and-so really traded in 1999 or was it actually 1998? Show a grasp of the big picture. Is this story saying exactly the same thing we reported yesterday or last week -- do we need to tweak the angle/hed to focus more on what's new?

You had me until that/which. The others you mentioned are usage preferences. That/which is grammatical.

 

[Riptide]

That said, the cleaning up of language is kind of an autopilot thing once you reach a certain level of experience. What impresses me in a sports copy editor is someone who might not hairsplit on nuances but takes a bigger-picture approach to editing. Factual accuracy -- making sure the final score is correct not only in the lede staff-written game story but in each scoreline of a roundup. Ability to lead a roundup or notebook with the most interesting item and take an inventive but not cryptic angle on the hed. Ability to help the writer, especially an inexperienced one -- work with him/her -- on tone and direction and content. Challenge writing that smoothly and entertainingly says absolutely nothing. Et cetera. As a veteran slot guy, I can live with someone who fails to change "following" to "after" and "which" to "that" and "prior to" to "before," but I want them alert to the factual and conceptual stuff that will attract negative attention from readers, sources and glass offices. Actively seek out factual errors. Was so-and-so really traded in 1999 or was it actually 1998? Show a grasp of the big picture. Is this story saying exactly the same thing we reported yesterday or last week -- do we need to tweak the angle/hed to focus more on what's new?

Great post, though "prior to" will always light me up.

 

[jr/shotglass]

You had me until that/which. The others you mentioned are usage preferences. That/which is grammatical.

And that's the point. Or, which is the point, if you prefer.

Clean up "that/which" on the page proof to your heart's desire. But if you're doing it, don't miss the factual error in the third graf. And catch the three-paragraph passage late in the story which just does not say anything.

 

[Versatile]

I'm with Frank_Ridgeway and jr/shotglass on this. Dangling modifiers are where it gets tricky because, often, they lead to factual errors or serious lack of clarity for those who understand grammar, but most readers can move right past them with no problem.

 

[Riptide]

Watch out for that "****" between grafs, too. [\oldcrossthread]

 

[Drip]

Frank's post is a reason why many desks are failing. Veterans who know those answers or who don't think twice about looking something out are being shown the door. Outstanding post Frank, perhaps your best yet.

 

[wicked]

Making the move back into the industry, but haven't subbed for a while and I need to brush up on grammar etc.
Are there any online resources to hand or a list of the most common errors etc found on sportsdesks?

Seeing as you used the term "subbed," I'm guessing you're across the pond.

Is there a British equivalent of the AP Stylebook? Does PA put one out?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

That said, the cleaning up of language is kind of an autopilot thing once you reach a certain level of experience. What impresses me in a sports copy editor is someone who might not hairsplit on nuances but takes a bigger-picture approach to editing. Factual accuracy -- making sure the final score is correct not only in the lede staff-written game story but in each scoreline of a roundup. Ability to lead a roundup or notebook with the most interesting item and take an inventive but not cryptic angle on the hed. Ability to help the writer, especially an inexperienced one -- work with him/her -- on tone and direction and content. Challenge writing that smoothly and entertainingly says absolutely nothing. Et cetera. As a veteran slot guy, I can live with someone who fails to change "following" to "after" and "which" to "that" and "prior to" to "before," but I want them alert to the factual and conceptual stuff that will attract negative attention from readers, sources and glass offices. Actively seek out factual errors. Was so-and-so really traded in 1999 or was it actually 1998? Show a grasp of the big picture. Is this story saying exactly the same thing we reported yesterday or last week -- do we need to tweak the angle/hed to focus more on what's new?

You had me until that/which. The others you mentioned are usage preferences. That/which is grammatical.

Not entirely true. We treat it as such on newspapers for the sake of stylebook simplicity, but some grammarians are not as rigid on this and Fowler in "The King's English" gives examples in which "that" is merely preferred over "which." Chicago Manual of Style's Q&A section (similar to AP's Ask The Editor) says "... Some people use 'which' restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved: Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment owners."

I see it as an American newspaper style preference, one that I follow (unless I simply miss it) but not necessarily always wrong the other way.

(Note the Chicago Manual editor's spelling of okay, an exception to AP but one that my newspaper also makes although I don't agree.)

 

[JJHHI]

I guess I stand corrected, then. But, boy, that usage of "which" bugs me.

Nonetheless, your initial post was spot-on, and I never meant to disagree with the premise, only about the relative importance of that/which.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Yep, bugs me, too.