9. Turkey’s militant mood was indicated by yesterday’s march in Istanbul while other big demonstrations are planned for today throughout the country in support of the Turkish Government’s demands that the number of Greek troops in Cyprus should be drastically reduced, that General Grivas should be dismissed, and that guarantees for the safety of the Turkish-Cypriot minority should be given.
10. In particular, Turkey will continue to insist that there should be no repetition of last week’s attacks on members of the Turkish minority by Greek militia and Greek-Cypriot forces. The Turkish suspicion is that these attacks were inspired by General Grivas, in his desire to have a military showdown which could lead to the union of Cyprus with Greece.
11. The British Government is making contingency plans for the possible withdrawal, in the event of large-scale fighting, of British forces on the island to the British sovereign bases. British civilians would, it is assumed, be collected there too. There are about one thousand British troops on the island, and Britain’s is the biggest contingent in the UN peacekeeping force. With its Canadian, Danish, Swedish and Irish contingents, the UN force amounts to about 4,500 men in all.
It is worth studying this treatment for its strengths and weaknesses. This is a running story. The crisis was a Turkish threat to invade Cyprus, the Mediterranean island close to Turkey. Behind this threat was a complaint of the Turkish minority on the island that they had been intimidated by the Greek community. A reader knowing none of this should still have been able to understand the story and relate the latest developments to this new knowledge.
First the structure of this story, then the criticisms.
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 are the news lead, summarising developments in Turkey, the United Nations, the United States, Canada and Britain. Paragraph 1 is the intro proper. It succeeds in setting the scene for war and the efforts for peace.
The action of the Turks marching through Istanbul adds urgency to the U Thant talks and takes the reader forward, the diplomatic developments beginning in paragraph 2. The scene is changed neatly in paragraph 3 with the transitional phrase ‘At the same time . . .’
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 elaborate the diplomatic activity and introduce background on the Greek and Turkish national forces on Cyprus. ‘Behind this . . .’ clearly introduces this phase of the story which is told in three paragraphs.
Paragraph 7 introduces new points – the military activity and the London assessment, and mentions the background threat of a Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It does this smoothly in a way which will tell new readers what the fuss is all about without delaying the story too much for the informed reader:
7. It is recognised in London that the danger of Turkish military intervention in Cyprus has definitely grown in the past 48 hours.
Imagine for a moment how much weaker paragraph 7 would have been if the text editor had left in the muffling word ‘situation’:
7. It is recognised in London that the situation has definitely grown more dangerous in the past 48 hours . . .
Paragraph 8 substantiates paragraph 7 on the dangers. It leads easily to paragraph 9 with the phrase ‘Turkey’s militant mood’, and there is an inferential reference to the lead intro. Paragraph 10 begins with the signal phrase that detail is to be presented: ‘In particular’. It also provides the very necessary background to the genesis of the crisis, the serious omission in the other daily paper’s treatment, given earlier.
Paragraph 11 rounds off the story with the specifically British involvement – first the news about the contingency plans, then the background to make them intelligible.
This is altogether a more coherent and meaningful way to handle a story from several sources. Unlike the other treatment, it does not assume that the reader has kept in close touch with the story from its beginning. The running news story is not very different from a feature series. The reader needs to be reminded, incidentally, of the story so far.
But even this structure is not ideal. How would you improve it?
There is one thing wrong with the news lead: it does not have the key background words ‘Turkish invasion of Cyprus’. The opportunity is missed twice with retreat into the vague tag ‘the situation’. The second criticism of the editing of this story is that it descends to detail and background too quickly, thus delaying important active news. It is not until the seventh paragraph that the military activity is mentioned and the tension on Cyprus itself. This is part of the latest news and worth a place in the news lead. The existing news lead spends too much time detailing the diplomatic activity. Indicating that there is intense diplomatic activity is proper for the news lead – but elaborating it before other important hard news is wrong.
The solution to all those weaknesses lies in paragraph 7. It is in the wrong place. Transpose it to paragraph 3. This brings in the military news and it does something else: it brings in the key concept of a threatened Turkish invasion of Cyprus. This makes other small textual changes necessary in the subbing. The old paragraph 3 would become paragraph 4. It would be necessary to reword it to refer back to U Thant’s activity:
4. America, Britain and Canada supported U Thant’s peace moves with a concerted diplomatic initiative . . .
Paragraph 8 would also be affected since it was linked to the old paragraph 7. The text editor has now to write a link phrase to indicate that a new section begins at the end of the diplomatic background.
8. The urgency of the diplomatic moves was reinforced by reports of a full preliminary deployment of Turkish land, sea and air forces. The Turkish Government has authorised the President . . .
Here now is the full revised version:
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.
He announced that he would send a personal representative to Nicosia, Athens and Ankara, to discuss the situation with the three governments.
It is recognised in London that 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.
America, Britain and Canada supported U Thant’s peace move with a concerted diplomatic initiative. They are to make representations to Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, calling for urgent action to prevent deterioration in the situation.
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.
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.
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.
The urgency of the diplomatic moves was reinforced by reports of a full preliminary deployment of Turkish land, sea and air forces. 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.
Turkey’s militant mood was indicated by yesterday’s march in Istanbul while other big demonstrations are planned for today throughout the country in support of the Turkish Government’s demands that the number of Greek troops in Cyprus should be drastically reduced, that General Griv
as should be dismissed, and that guarantees for the safety of the Turkish Cypriot minority should be given.
In particular, Turkey will continue to insist that there should be no repetition of last week’s attacks on members of the Turkish minority by Greek militia and Greek-Cypriot forces. The Turkish suspicion is that these attacks were inspired by General Grivas, in his desire to have a military showdown which could lead to the union of Cyprus with Greece.
The British Government is making contingency plans for the possible withdrawal, in the event of large-scale fighting, of British forces on the island to the British sovereign bases. British civilians would, it is assumed, be collected there too. There are about one thousand British troops on the island, and Britain’s is the biggest contingent in the UN peacekeeping force. With its Canadian, Danish, Swedish and Irish contingents, the UN force amounts to about 4,500 men in all.
It would be a good exercise for text editors to imagine they have to cut this story. They should now have all the various elements clearly in their mind. Should all the sections stay and the detailing be reduced? Or should some sections be cut altogether, retaining the other details? In a large international story like this it seems a pity to cut any of the sections: but if this means detail has to be cut it must not be detail which gives the story meaning. Safe detailed cuts (to the full revised version): the second sentence of paragraph 8, and the last two sentences of the final paragraph of the story. The Turkish Government’s demands could be confined to the particular demands in paragraph 10, which would save the latter half of paragraph 9. If further cuts were needed the whole of the last paragraph could go. If a really drastic cut were called for, the first four paragraphs would stand – when paragraph 7 of the original story has been transposed. This illustrates again how important it was to move that paragraph higher.
Let us now see how to pull together a series of separate reports on the diplomatic and military moves during a war between India and Pakistan. On a typical day there are agency messages from Moscow, New Delhi, Karachi, Washington and London.
The military reports do not seem to take the war much further, but there is intense diplomatic activity. The two elements which strike text editors as most newsworthy – and they will have kept themselves well informed on developments –are a warning by Russia to China not to interfere and a possible trip to Moscow by the UN Secretary-General. America also warns China to keep out of the war. The text editor needs to write off a news lead from the messages:
1. Both Russia and the United States warned China to keep out of the Indo-Pakistan war last night. Russia’s warning came at the end of a day of intense diplomatic activity and a report that U Thant was on his way to Moscow to seek Russia’s help in arranging a cease-fire.
Note how crisply news points are compressed into this intro lead – Russia’s warning; America’s warning; diplomatic activity; U Thant’s trip and its purpose.
2. On the battlefront meanwhile India and Pakistan held grimly to their lines in the week-old war, with no sign of a breakthrough by either side.
The news lead continues with an assessment of agency reports from both fronts. The fighting details can now be left until very much later.
3. The Soviet Government’s warning to China was in a statement issued by the Tass news agency. It again called on India and Pakistan to stop fighting and on other nations for restraint and responsibility.
The first four words indicate that development of the lead is about to take place. It is substantiation, not repetition.
4. China was not named directly but the language pointed unmistakably to Peking: China has sided violently with Pakistan and condemned Russia’s earlier appeals for restraint.
A key paragraph of background and interpretation written in by the text editor. Running the Russian statement before the interpretation, or worse still without it, would confuse readers. They would be puzzled by the absence of a specific reference to China.
5. ‘The whole world and all states’, said the statement, ‘should warn those who facilitate the fanning of the conflict by their policy that they thereby assume grave responsibility for such a policy and for such actions.
Agency copy. Direct quotes are essential to substantiate the intro and give the tone of the Russian message. At this point the text editor has picked up original agency copy from Moscow and edited that.
6. ‘No Government has any right to add fuel to the flames. There are forces which seek to profit by worsened Indo-Pakistan relations. By their incendiary statements they push them towards further aggravation of the military conflict – and can cause present developments to escalate into an even bigger conflagration. Many states find themselves drawn into conflict one by one.
Still direct editing on Moscow agency copy.
‘This is a dangerous prospect. As shown by the experience of history, this may have the gravest consequences, not only for the peoples of the region where the conflict began, but also far beyond it.’
7. The statement renewed the offer of Russia’s good offices in ending the war. After a cease-fire India and Pakistani forces should return to the Kashmir dividing line of the 1949 armistice.
A summary of the rest of the statement written by the text editor.
8. In Washington yesterday, America’s warning was given by US Secretary of State, Mr Dean Rusk: ‘Our own advice to Peking’, he said, ‘would be to stay out and let the Security Council settle it’. Mr Rusk said the Soviet attitude had been helpful so far.
The first two words written on to agency copy alert the reader that a new phase of the story is about to be dealt with. The phrase ‘America’s warning . . .’ refers inferentially to the intro and proceeds to substantiate it.
9. [The Chinese have cited Russian appeals for restraint as evidence that Moscow ‘revisionists’ are working hand in hand with American imperialists.]
Another piece of background information interpolated by the text editor to emphasise the unusual nature of the US–USSR diplomatic agreement and of China’s belligerent isolation.
10. U Thant’s possible trip to Moscow was reported by ‘informed sources’ quoted by Reuters in Delhi. They said he was expected to fly to Moscow tomorrow. U Thant was in New Delhi yesterday and talked to Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh. A second meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr Shastri, was postponed until today.
Again the inferential reference back to the intro and then its elaboration. Editing on agency copy.
11. In a big tank battle for the Pakistani town of Sialkot, near the Kashmir border, India claimed her troops had made some advances but Pakistan said the Indians had been beaten back.
On the central front near Lahore, similar claims and counter-claims were made. On the southern most front Pakistan claimed to have occupied a major part of Indian territory.
India said her troops had thrust further into Pakistani Kashmir.
Pakistani planes reported setting two Indian air bases on fire, raided military installations at three other towns and for the first time struck at Jammu airport inside Kashmir.
The story is rounded off with the war reports, the text editor’s distillation of a flood of copy.
Caution and compression are the watch words on a dull day. Claim and counter-claim are related in each instance. It is vital to retain the sources and the contradictions in stories like this. They should not be deleted for space or smoothness. One may be editing out the truth.
The way this story has been constructed should make quick cuts very simple. If hard cutting is needed, the last three paragraphs could go, leaving the reader to survive on the intro indication that the war is at a stalemate. The Soviet statement could be run shorter by deleting paragraph 7, and one element of background could be discarded – the square brackets of Section 9. Paragraph 4 would be retained. If further cuts still were needed the statement could be reduced to paragraph 5.
Even while editing a story to a required length, a text editor may be told that further cuts are needed. This happens of
ten on afternoon newspapers and in editing broadcast news. Having envisaged a clear structure for the story, it is not difficult swiftly to identify the sections that can safely be excised.
CHAPTER SEVEN
Background
Background for Intelligibility
Disraeli once remarked that there were only two people in the world who really understood the situation in Schleswig Holstein. One of them was dead. He was the other and he had forgotten. It is the text editor’s responsibility to make sure that when Schleswig Holstein etc. gets into the paper or on the air everyone can understand what the latest twist in the story means. So the text editor of the statement–opinion story has these two tasks: get the structure right and give enough background to make the story meaningful to the new reader. But shouldn’t it be the reporters’ job to give the background? Yes, but specialist reporters frequently fail to do so precisely because they know so much. They forget that while they have been immersed in one subject, readers have been mending the roads, auditing accounts, making the beds or singing grand opera. Their minds are not well prepared for alien complexities and subtleties.
Essential English Page 18
