An American Example
This is a story of strong Anglo-American interest. Let’s see how the international edition of one US daily handled it. The news lead was:
The Westinghouse Electric Corporation of America found itself in the middle of a furore today about the brain drain of scientific talent from Britain. A headline in the Daily Telegraph said ‘US plot to win British scientists’.
Westinghouse itself in a statement issued in New York and London did not deny it hoped to attract skilled technicians in nuclear research. It said it acted in a ‘straightforward manner’ in advertising in the British press to fill jobs in the US.
A Labourite MP said he would demand an explanation from Minister of Technology, Mr Benn, who provoked the furore by accusing Westinghouse of trying to obtain nuclear know-how on the cheap.
This is 111 words. There are many things wrong with this as a news lead for American (or British) readers; and indeed the whole story is weak. For American readers the stress on the American company is right for the intro. It is in the further paragraphs that the story fails. The biggest flaw is that the news lead stumbles over itself to give the company’s reply before the reader knows what is Mr Benn’s central charge. That comes in paragraph 3; paragraph 2 has been devoted entirely to the disclaimer (in the development of the story this is taken up again in paragraph 5). It is far too slow to delay until paragraph 3 that the controversy has been provoked by the British Government. The Telegraph headline is colourful and worth quoting but it cannot displace the substance of the story, which is that the Minister of Technology has made an attack.
The rest of the US newspaper story was:
He said, in an open letter to scientists at the Dounreay experimental establishment in Scotland, that Westinghouse’s offer of employment was not really another example of the familiar brain drain. He said it was instead because of Westinghouse trying to purchase the knowledge and experience a whole team of scientists had gained by hiring away a few key persons.
In reply Westinghouse said many of the scientists involved had education and experience that could be utilised in the company’s fast growing nuclear power activities. Labourite, Mr Hector Hughes, said he would ask Mr Benn to tell Parliament how many scientists have gone to the US in the last six months.
Anyone editing this story on an American paper ought not to have been satisfied with it. Why, the text editor might ask, should a big American corporation want British scientists? (Not until the last paragraph is the reader even told that it has something to do with nuclear power for domestic purposes.) Of course the story completely fails to deal with the Westinghouse licence bid. It fails again by being too generalised. We have ‘nuclear research; nuclear know-how; nuclear power’ but not once do we have the specific fact that Dounreay is a fast-breeder reactor and a crisp explanation of what that is.
The American news lead has other faults. The salary comparison is omitted – at least as interesting to American readers as British. And a good deal of space has been wasted by the kind of loose wording assailed in earlier chapters. Some of it in italics here: ‘in the middle of a furore’; ‘scientific talent’; ‘Westinghouse itself’; ‘in a statement issued in’; ‘Westinghouse’s offer of employment’; ‘in reply’; ‘the scientists involved’.
So much for the news lead. How should the rest of the story have been developed? There are two immediate necessities: the content of the minister’s letter, so that the remarks can be seen in context and so that the news lead can be substantiated. And, secondly, any reply from the US company. What else? Comments from the atomic scientists involved; comparisons of salaries; discussion of the fast-breeder reactor, and an independent assessment of Britain’s position. Having constructed the news lead, the text editor may have to weave these other elements into a composite story from several reporters, the news agencies, the scientific correspondent, and so on.
There is no set formula for the development of such a news story, only guidelines. The first is: Substantiate the news lead. The second: Never run ahead of the reader’s knowledge. The third: Remember it is your newspaper’s job to report the news impartially. Let us see how these guidelines might have helped us with the atomic scientists story.
Substantiating the news lead means, if possible, running the minister’s letter in full. What if there is not the space to do both this and give Westinghouse comment plus an explanation of what a fast-breeder reactor is? The other two principles must claim some space and the minister’s letter will have to be cut – or any wordier sections rendered carefully into more concise reported speech.
If we are to take the reader with us into the story, the second principle means that the explanation of a fast-breeder reactor must come fairly high up in the story – before we have used lots of words about fast-breeder reactors on the false assumption that the reader knows already. This explanation need not be long.
One of the British papers did it neatly within parentheses: ‘The fast breeder system (by which the nuclear power station makes its own fuel at the same time as it makes its own electricity) is the climax of 20 years of investment by the British people in civil nuclear technology, said the Minister’.
Note the way the explanation is not allowed to delay the development of the story. The same sentence takes the story a stage further. A viable construction here, then, would be:
1. News lead on selected key points, 3-4 paragraphs
2. Paragraph giving Westinghouse denial (which was brief)
3. Quick explanation in passing of ‘fast-breeder reactor’ and on into
4. The minister’s letter
5. Comments from atomic scientists
6. Scientific assessment of Britain’s position; comparative salaries
Arguably the brief Westinghouse comment could have followed at the end of or adjacent to the story – with a separate headline for prominence. But this treatment requires a certain length. Where denial or comment is brief and the story itself is long, it is unfair to tack the denial at the end, almost as an afterthought. Even if there is a separate denial story a skilled editor should be able to indicate the fact in the main narrative without delaying its progress:
The Minister’s charge – strongly denied last night by the company – was that . . .
The suggested structure for this story makes one assumption: that as section 4 one would choose to publish the minister’s letter in full and certainly in sequence. With a relatively short letter like this no text editor should do otherwise. For the intro it is right to take a striking quote or passage from anywhere in the letter, but later that quote must be given in its proper context (just as intro quotes from speeches should always later be given in context). There is no point in transposing paragraphs at this stage; it is a form of inaccuracy or deception. If parts of the letter are being omitted this should be indicated by sequential dots, or by explanatory phrases for each quotation such as ‘The Minister went on . . . He appealed . . . The Minister ended . . .’ This is only necessary as a signal to the reader when parts are being omitted. When a document is being quoted in full, it should be allowed to run without such interruptions.
Speeches and Reports
The way speeches and documents may be summarised in third-person reporting has already been discussed (in Chapter 3). Here we are concerned only with the construction of such stories.
They should not begin with the beginnings of the speech or the document unless these beginnings provide the most important news point. They rarely do. News leads on official reports are more likely to be based on points from the conclusions; intros on speeches more often pick up a point from the end than from the beginning. It is common political practice to serve the plums for dessert.
The structure of a speech report should be:
1. Intro stating most important news point, with or without supporting direct quotation in a sentence or phrase
2. Any further points summarised in third person with or without incidental quotation
/> 3. Substantiation of the news lead (1 and 2 above) with direct quotations. This is the only place where third-person reporting needs to be substantiated by production of the direct quotation on which it is based. Any phrases quoted in the intro must also be put in proper context
4. Development of the speech, preferably of the most important section in direct quotation
5. Third-person summary of other main points, with or without direct quotes, each to be more briefly treated than the main points
Judging importance in speeches and statements is, of course, something the text editor can do only with experience and knowledge – knowledge of the subject of the speech, the political context, the news background. There are some general guides. Preference for the intro should be given to those parts of the speech which promise or imply action. Opinion and logical argument are not normally as newsworthy as announcements or promises or hints of action. ‘Action’ is the Prime Minister announcing a proposed new law or the president of a golf club promising to resist a new road across the course. Both are news developments. Something has happened or may happen. There is an attitude which will have repercussions. Text editors must not hesitate to rewrite a reporter’s intro entirely if they think an ‘action’ news point is too far down in the speech. They must be ready to do to the report what the reporter has done to the speaker. They must be ready to bring the news point to the top. This was an intro:
Mr Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Prime Minister, is of the view that the provocative flight of the American reconnaissance plane was only a probe and not a preparation for war.
But the real news was in the third paragraph of the reporter’s copy:
Mr Khrushchev warned that if the United States wanted to unleash a war ‘we shall be compelled to fire rockets which will explode bombs on the aggressor’s territory in the very first minute’.
This was the news. It was positive; it implied action. There is a rough test, too, for newsworthiness of the opinion sections of a speech. It is not enough to say that controversial opinions are news. They may be; or they may be stale. A better indicator of the news value of opinion is the test of contrariness. How much would it surprise you if the speaker were saying the opposite?
If it would surprise you a great deal, there is no news value in his present affirmation. There is a speech, say, by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein at a time in 1999 when he is occasionally being bombed by US planes. He denounces United States imperialism. As Mandy Rice Davies said in another context, ‘Well, he would wouldn’t he?’ The denunciation is not news. If he had praised the United States one would be stunned. So would the readers. Therefore these latest unsurprising opinions are not worth prominence.
A Protestant politician in Northern Ireland says the Roman Catholics are to blame for violence in Ulster. It would surprise everyone a great deal if he had said the Protestants were to blame. There is therefore little or no news value in these latest opinions. They are controversial – but they are also predictable. The test of contrariness is obvious, but it is surprising how often it can help when addressed to an apparently important, but really worthless, statement. It is the pin for a balloon filled only with hot air.
Running Statement–Opinion Stories
The text editor on a daily newspaper will often have to pull together a series of stories from several sources, arriving at different times, and produce one coherent narrative. The construction is similar to that of the single statement–opinion story, but the text editor must link the separate sections smoothly and interpolate background. This is real subbing. The lazy way is simply to add each separate element of the story as it arrives with no attempt at reassessing priorities. This is a classic example:
The Supreme National Defence Council of Greece met urgently tonight under the chairmanship of King Constantine after renewed Turkish threats of an impending invasion in Cyprus. The meeting, the second in 24 hours, continued until the early hours of the morning.
A Greek Government statement late tonight said that, if Turkey attacked Cyprus – ostensibly to protect the Turkish Cypriot minority – ‘no one would be in a position to avert the automatic exacerbation of the situation on the island, and of justifiable but catastrophic reprisals against the Turkish minority by uncontrollable Greek Cypriots’.
Mr Pipinelis, the Greek Foreign Minister, said at a press conference that Greece was determined to accept no settlement of the Cyprus dispute which would be ‘incompatible with the national interest and Greek dignity’. He said that the Greek reply to last Friday’s Turkish Note had been delivered to Ankara. It made suggestions for a settlement of the crisis.
The Turkish Note – which demanded among other things the withdrawal of the Greek troops stationed in Cyprus – was not an ultimatum, he added.
ATHENS, Nov. 22 – The Greek Armed Forces were brought to an advanced state of readiness. Military airfields were blacked out throughout Greece and pilots were briefed. Heavy troop movements were reported in north-east Greece, near the Greece–Turkey border. Military movements were also reported on the Turkish side of the border.
ANKARA – The Turkish Cabinet met to consider what one Minister described as Greece’s ‘rejection’ of Friday’s Note.
In Istanbul earlier in the day 80,000 demonstrators, organized by students, marched through the streets demanding war.
NEW YORK – U Thant, the United Nations Secretary-General, said he was sending a special representative to Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, to ask the Governments to exercise the utmost restraint and to try to reduce tension.
Mr. Cyrus Vance, a former Pentagon official, left for Ankara as President Johnson’s special representative. He will fly on to Athens.
NICOSIA – Turkish reconnaissance aircraft were sighted over Cyprus for the second successive day. One newspaper reported a resignation offer by General Grivas, the commander of the Cyprus armed forces.
LONDON – The situation was described during the day as ‘most dangerous’. It was believed that there was a real danger of a Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
Readers lurch through this story with no clear idea where they are going or what is going on. It is left to the last paragraph for at least someone’s guidance that the crisis really is considered dangerous. What the text editor has to do is give the reader a God’s eye view of the crisis; to relate the events in one capital to the events in another; and to introduce assessment and background and action where they help the reader’s understanding and carry the story forward. The same events were presented in this way (author’s numerals) in another daily:
1. As 80,000 Turks marched through Istanbul yesterday calling for war with Greece, U Thant, the United Nations Secretary-General, issued an appeal for peace.
2. He announced that he would send a personal representative to Nicosia, Athens and Ankara, to discuss the situation with the three governments.
3. At the same time a concerted diplomatic initiative by the American, British and Canadian governments got under way. The three countries are to make representations to Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, calling for urgent action to prevent deterioration in the situation.
4. Behind this is a formula evolved by the Canadian Government earlier this month. Mr. Pearson, the Canadian Prime Minister, who is now in London, had long talks yesterday with Mr. Wilson and the Commonwealth Secretary, Mr. Thomson, on the Cyprus situation.
5. Mr. Pearson thinks that the British and Canadian governments, by virtue of their troop contributions, supported by American diplomatic power, should be able to insist on far-reaching changes in the present contorted domestic political situation in Cyprus itself. An essential element in this is the personal trust which President Makarios feels for Mr. Pearson.
6. If the UN force were temporarily increased in size and given wider powers, so Mr. Pearson argues, then the Greek and Turkish national forces stationed on the island could be reduced from their present inflated levels of more than 8,000 and 1,000 respectively.
7. It is recognised in London tha
t the danger of Turkish military intervention in Cyprus has definitely grown in the past 48 hours. In Cyprus itself tension mounted yesterday as Turkish reconnaissance planes were sighted over the island for the second successive day.
8. According to diplomatic quarters, there has been a full preliminary deployment of Turkish land, sea and air forces, while the Turkish Government has authorised the President to use far-reaching emergency powers. In the summer of 1964 the two Turkish Houses of Parliament gave the President authority to order military action in, or in the neighbourhood of, Cyprus. The President has now been authorised to order similar action ‘in other areas’ – meaning against the Greek mainland or Greek islands.
Essential English Page 17
