Writing

Journalists know how to write well and do it — fast, and all the time.

That's the theory, anyway.

But when they don't, they give the whole profession a bad name — or I should say, a worse name. A quick stroll through the front pages of most dailies and around the blogosphere will tell you there are a lot of people working for publications and media organizations who aren't very good writers. Or they aren't trying very hard.

Maybe we can blame it on the layoffs of copyeditors and the piling of work onto the backs of those whose seniority kept them in the newsroom.

That's discouraging for someone trying to teach students to write like the professionals — people being paid to write but who are producing stuff that's too often lazy, under-reported drivel, derivative stuff.

A student asked me today to what to do if the job description says the publication or media organization wants years of experience before they'll look at a candidate.

I told her what the media organization wants is somebody good — really good. And someone at that organization figured a few years' full-time experience would bring good work — good reporting, good writing.

But if they're smart, they'll get past the numbers on the resume and look at what's in the portfolio. If it's great writing, and they want their media organization to grow, they'll invite that just-out-of-college person in for a chat.

Writing is a function of hard work. And in some media organizations there's an inverse proportion between years of service and willingness to dig in and put words together that are stunning in their insight, never-seen-before facts, and did-you-hear-this novelty.

Maybe youth is wasted on the young. But editors waste their opportunities if they neglect looking at the power of what's coming to them from the schools they've not yet hired from.