Will Facebookers ever learn to write?

The most recent issue of Public Relations Tactics, the trade publication of the Public Relations Association of America, contains a bit about writing that I emphatically agree with.

Tactics' "PR blotter" notes that among today's teens, e-mail is as old school as a mullet. Young people today rely almost exclusively on instant messaging, text messaging and alerts on Facebook and MySpace.

These quick and abbreviated communications media may be trendy, but they have a monumental drawback -- they don't force users to communicate in grammatically correct sentences or even in complete, complex thoughts. Instead they're electronic versions of a caveman's grunts and gestures.

The PR Blotter piece correctly points out, though, that while e-mail may be passe among teens, it still rules the workplace. That means that in the professional world, you must be able to communicate effectively with the written word, a skill that young people entering the workforce will have a hard time mastering after spending their teens texting.

So, how do you combat modern society's hi-tech assault on grammatically correct, comprehensive written communication? That's a good question. Maybe it starts with placing the same emphasis on writing in grade school and high school that's now being placed on math and science.

Have you got rhythm?

Thanks to a post on Dan Santow's Word Wise blog, I recently visited Confident Writing, a blog by Joanna Young, a Brit, who offers 10 tips on improving your writing. To second what Dan said, Joanna does a nice job with her list, though I think every writer would have a largely different one.

I particularly like Joanna's advice that we writers must avoid basic grammar mistakes, use plain everyday words and try not to "witter on" (obviously a British expression for droning on in long, meandering sentences).

The only tip on Joanna's list that I would amend is her advice to use short sentences. Yes, short sentences are key to solid, punchy, readable writing. But over-reliance on them can also make writing read woodenly.

I advise my writing students to learn how to write short sentences; too many beginning writers tend to witter on. But once they've mastered that tool, I urge them to mix in longer sentences. Blending long and short sentences gives life and rhythm to writing.

Know what to look for

I've commented recently on reading over your copy carefully before sending it, which improves your chances of catching errors. Of course I say this knowing there are those out there who couldn't care less whether their communications are cluttered with misspellings, comma splices, punctuation goofs and other flaws.

Trying to change that way of thinking may be about as successful as persuading college football to scrap the Bowl Championship Series and institute a play-off. So, for those who don't care what their copy reads like (I guess that also means that you don't care if you communicate), this post isn't for you.

For those who do care, let me get to the point. Yes, careful rereading will catch most if not all errors. And once you've made that technique a habit, the next step is to know what to look for when you're scrutinizing your copy for mistakes.

That can be a long list. But one of the chief errors that creeps into copy has to do with everyday words that sound like other words.

I'm talking about writing your when what you meant to say was you're, or their, when what you intended was they're or there. Other commonly confused pairs are its and it's, and who's and whose.

As I said the list of common errors can be lengthy and it can be different for every writer. Pay attention to the inadvertent mistakes that end up on your copy and make a point of looking for them when you inspect your text for flaws. It's hard to catch all your mistakes, I know I can't, but if you can spot and fix most of them, you're doing well.

Whoa there!

One of my favorite writing blogs is Kenneth W. Davis' "Manage Your Writing." In a recent post, Kenneth reminds us of the need to "take a few more swings" at a piece of communication before we send it.

In other words, don't hit the send button the instant after you type the last period of the last sentence of your e-mail. Don't publish your most recent blog post while your keyboard is still warm from your flying fingers.

Allowing a piece of writing to cool down -- even for a few minutes -- before sending it is an invaluable technique for spotting errors in your copy or your thinking. And if you were guilty of WWA (writing while angry), giving your writing some time to age can give you time to come to your senses and either delete the ire-filled communication you were about to send (and probably regret), or at least take out the four-letter words.

How much time should you take? As much as you can. If you only have a moment or two, then take it. Of course, the more time that elapses between first draft and sending, the more likely you are to catch and fix errors.

Get to the point in news releases

Way back in September, I criticized myself for neglecting my blog and promised to be more diligent regarding its care and feeding. But it didn't happen. I could offer the usual excuses but I won't. Like anyone who has fallen off the wagon, I'm simply going to dust myself off and clamber back on board by discussing news releases. In particular, how you should start them off.

A few weeks ago, I read a column by one PR expert who urged her readers to introduce or "lead" their news release with feature copy. In other words, instead of ripping into the meat of what information the release is intended to convey, you should, according to the expert I'm citing, look for ways to hook the reader by offering a compelling anecdote, lively description or the outcome of a relevant study. That's a feature lead, a technique used by journalists that can be incredibly effective when hammered together by a capable wordsmith. But "news releases" are not "news stories." They are not intended to entertain an audience. They're a blunt communication tool whose aim is to spark news coverage.

So my advice if you're pondering whether to start your news release with a feature lead is don't. And there's a number of reasons why I say that, most of them based on having spent years as a journalist who read thousands of news releases -- many of which were poorly written.

Reporters and editors who are scanning your news release don't want to be entertained by a feature lead. They don't care how clever or creative the news release writer is. What they want when they look at your news release – along with the dozens of others they receive every day -- is to make a simple determination: Is there anything in this news release that my readers or viewers would care to know?

The sooner you can answer that question in your release, the better. If there's nothing in your release that's of interest to the news outlet you sent it to, no amount of tarting it up with a feature lead is going to "sell" the journalist on using it. The real danger with slapping a feature lead on a news release is that if you do have actual "news" to share, an exasperated editor may give up on your news release before gleaning that fact because it's buried so deep in the copy that she'd need a pick axe to find it.

Journalists are busier now than ever, so they won't spend a lot of time trying to excavate the point of your news release. They expect it to be up top, where it's supposed to be, so put it there and vent your creative side somewhere else.

Clarity comes first

I read somewhere that you have to approach blogging like a farmer, meaning, I guess, that you must carefully tend your fields or they'll quickly become overgrown. As I survey my own back forty, as represented by this blog, I can see that the rabbits, gophers and weeds have invaded. This is my first entry in weeks and the only excuse I can offer is that I've been too busy. As an independent public relations practitioner that's a good problem to have – work piling up – but it's no way to run a blog.

So, let's get to the subject at hand – writing. Now that summer has ended, my university media writing class has resumed, and I've been spending Monday and Wednesday afternoons in front of a group of students who are eager to learn how to write. Their first efforts bear the usual problems, some of which are easy to fix. Stripping away the cliches and pointing out basic punctuation and grammar flaws, for example.

What's more difficult is teaching them to write clearly. Clarity is a problem in many people's writing, not just university students. In fact, I'd say people spend a sizable portion of every business day trying to figure out what someone else is trying to say in an e-mail, text message or report.

Removing the clutter from your writing (jargon, cliches and over-used intensifers like "very" and "really") helps. But after that, the challenge of establishing clarity becomes thornier. If you're not careful, you can craft sentences that are grammatically correct but contribute little to effective communication.

How do you teach clarity? It's difficult, I can tell you. What I advise my students and would tell anyone who's faced with a writing task is to try to cultivate the ability to see your writing as the reader sees it. You know what you're trying to say, but your readers don't. Where in your text might they take a wrong turn or slam into a wall of confusion. Ask yourself these questions and if you have even a hunch that your reader might not get your meaning, recast your copy. Break it down. Simplify it. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but clarity is the essence of understanding.

So simple a middle-aged writer can do it (or maybe not)

When it comes to technology, I feel like the Geico caveman: I understand enough to get by in today's hi-tech world, but look more closely and you can easily tell I'm a neanderthal when it comes to certain things involving computers. This blog is a good example. I'm happy with the content, but I know there are plenty of technological bells and whistles that should be added, like a blog roll.

So, until I muster the motivation to learn how to put one on here, let me list a few writing and communication blogs that I find worth reading. Maybe you will, too.

-- "My 2 cents" by public relations and communications expert David Reich offers cogent comment on marketing, media and PR. I like Dave's writing style, too.

-- Kenneth W. Davis' "Manage Your Writing" always seems to have something helpful to say on the craft. Check him out.

-- The great thing about Roy Clark's writing blog is that besides its outstanding content, it also introduces you to Poynteronline, an informative Web site that's aimed at journalists but is worth reading by anyone interested in effective communication. Take a look at Roy's post today on the art of revision.

-- Another must-see blog for me is Dan Santow's "Word Wise." Dan offers specifics on grammar, usage, punctuation and other vital topics, and he conveys them in a highly readable way.

That'll have to do until I can get that blog roll figured out.

Be careful what you ask for

I frequently have clients who, in asking me to exmaine something they've written say, "All it needs is proofread." I try not to cringe and then gently explain that what they're requesting may not be what they really want, or shouldn't be. Here's why.

To most professional writers and editors "proofreading" refers to a process of scanning a document for errors in spelling, grammar, usage and punctuation. That's it. Proofreading amounts to little more than what Microsoft Word's spell-grammar check function accomplishes, and we all know how effective that is.

Proofreading fails to encompass a vital, more time-consuming examination that every piece of written communication should undergo – editing. When professionals edit text, they not only proofread it, but they also examine it for problems of structure, logic, style, tone and other fundamental elements. Getting these things right is what marks the difference between an effective communication and one that baffles readers. In fact, you could have a piece that's free of errors in spelling, usage and grammar and still be utterly unreadable because of the other flaws I just mentioned.

If I had to have an error in my copy, I'd rather it be a typo or punctuation goof than an error in logic or structure. And what I'm saying doesn't just go apply to someone who's barely capable of stringing two words together. Even pros need edited, not just proofread. I believe so firmly in that advice, that if a client insists that he or she wants me to comb text only for mistakes in grammar, usage and punctuation, I refuse the assignment.

No name calling

I was reading an article by Biz Stone on the Blogger Web site's help page recently when Biz (is that short for something?) referred to someone as a "grammar bitch." Ouch! That's a snarky way of referring to a person who suggests that if we're going to write in English we should observe its rules of grammar, usage and punctuation.

Actually, to give Biz some credit, he used the b-word in a paragraph in which he tossed a bone to the advocates of clear writing, advising that if you don't know a pronoun from a proverb, you should "fix yourself up a bit...have some respect for your readers."

Though I haven't been called a grammar bitch or bastard yet (not to my face, anyway), I have noticed that whenever I advocate the need to write well and observe the rules of grammar, I often get an icy response along the lines of "no one cares about that anymore."

I won't do as Biz does and resort to name calling. In fact, in the interest of playing fair intellectually, I'll conditionally concede that point by responding, "Sometimes no one cares." And even in those cases, the non-caring is limited to simple errors in capitalization, spelling, or some other flesh wound of a grammar flaw. But if you butcher sentence structure, disregard subject-verb agreement, or dangle your modifiers, people do care. They care enough to dismiss you as a buffoon and will go elsewhere for information. Now, that is a bitch.

All the emoticons that are fit to print

I mentioned emoticons in a recent post, and on Sunday, 7.29., the New York Times ran an informative piece on the evolution of these helpful little critters. I'd like to say that the Times piece was inpsired by my post, but of course that would be a stretch.

The piece includes a cogent quote by Will Schwalbe, an author of "Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home": "In a perfect world, we would have time to compose e-mails that made it clear through our language that we are being cheerful and friendly, but we're doing these things hundreds of times a day under pressure."

Schwalbe goes on to note that he sees a broadening use of emoticons among adults in "delicate and significant communcations." With that in mind, I'll repeat the contention I made in my recent posting (which dealt with avoiding having your communications misinterpreted). Emoticons are all right, but use them, if you must, only to back up or underscore the feeling and tone that you should try to establish by striving to write clearly and concisely, and then carefully reviewing what you've written.

It's not as hard as you might think. ;-)

Write as you speak -- speak as you write

Most folks would agree that we are what we eat. Considering that I consume way too many cheeseburgers and pizzas, I don't want to dwell on what that makes me. But let's modify the dietary adage and apply it to writing: "We write what we speak."

Huh? you say. OK. Maybe I'm overworking the maxim. What I'm trying to convey is that just as we're careful about grammar, punctuation and usage when we write, or should be, we must be careful about the same issues when we speak because writing and speaking are related. If we employ sloppy grammar and usage when we talk, then it's likely that the same flaws will creep into our writing.

What I've found is that people start out learning grammar, usage, punctuation, vocabulary and so on to become better writers. But as they become skilled as writers, they also become more circumspect about the words coming out of their mouth. And as Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing."

As we become better writers, we speak more precisely and correctly, which feeds back into our writing and, before long, you have this beautiful ying and yang thing going.

So, the next time you're holding forth about something, siphon off some of your gray matter to simultaneously mind your grammar and usage, your choice of words and the way you're structuring your sentences. Is there a chance that you might come off as too starchy? Yes, but that's part of the learning experience. Edit yourself the same way you edit your writing, and in time you'll find your true voice as a speaker, just as you'll discover it as a writer.

Say what you mean

We've all blurted out things we would like to take back, or have had what we said taken wrong. The same errors often occur in writing, perhaps even more frequently because written words have to stand on their own; they can't be propped up by body language, facial expression and tone of voice.

Absent these helpful indicators, what we write often goes awry. Anyone who's written what they intended as an inoffensive e-mail or memo only to be surprised by a frosty response that makes it clear that the recipient took it wrong, knows what I mean.

"Say what you mean," is the slogan for my public relations and marketing communications business. And if you want to make sure you're doing that when you author an e-mail, letter, memo, report or other written communication, follow some of these tips:

• Don't write when you're angry. Usually you'll regret it after you've cooled off. If you feel compelled to vent your ire in writing, go ahead. But wait at least 24 hours before shipping it out. Most of the time, you'll never send the poisonous missive you previously penned.

• Exercise one of a writer's most important tools: being able to read what you've written through the eyes of the reader. As the writer, you know that you're trying to be witty or humorous, but your reader can't look inside your head. He or she has only your words on the page or computer screen. Scrutinize your work with that in mind. Clarity and precision of language are key. Are you really saying what you mean?

• Let your writing age. Above, I recommended a 24-hour cooling off period when you write angry. I suggest the same period with any important communication -- be it a vital report or a love letter. That first draft that practically writes itself may initially seem to be a model of wit and sagacity, but revisiting it even a few hours later may unmask it as flawed and trite. I know, you often can't afford to postpone sending something. If so, follow this rule: stick to the unadorned facts and give your communication at least one swift read-through before pressing the send button.

• When e-mailing, don't rely on smiley faces and emoticons (keyboard characters that can be combined to form expressive symbols, :), for example) to convey that you're just kidding. I'm not advising against using these tools, but be mindful that not all of your recipients are aware of their meaning. Count on your words to convey your message.

• Know that humor is a tough effect to handle successfully, as anyone who has ever attempted stand-up can confirm. If you try to be comical in print, you'd better know what you're doing; otherwise, leave the jokes to the pros.

• Be mindful of "tone." I'm not talking about the noise you hear over the phone after the other party hangs up. In writing, tone refers to the choice of words, sentences and expressions that give readers insight into our mood and manner as we're speaking to them through writing. Our tone can be serious, frivolous, casual, angry, etc. In business writing, it's usually the former. Just make sure, as you review what you've typed, that your writing reflects that.

This list could be longer, but you get the point. Words are like dynamite. They must be handled carefully or they can blow up in your face. Here are some other helpful sources on this topic: Mind your manners and e-mail etiquette.

Armor up!

On the first day of each semester I tell my university writing class that one of the most important tools a writer can possess is a hide about as thick as a rhinoceros's. Why? Because whether you're a novelist, copywriter, journalist, or report writer, if you take time to put words on paper, a little bit of your self bleeds out along with the ink, which is why we tend to take criticisms of our writing personally, as though our religious convictions or politics were being attacked.

The more work you put into your writing, the more seriously you take it. Hence the need for a bulky suit of armor to better enable you to survive the arrows and spear thrusts of constructive criticism. Try not to take it personally when someone suggests that you could have worded a sentence differently or that he or she really doesn't understand what you're getting at in the second paragraph.

Criticism, or editing, is a necessary element of the writing process. We know what we're trying to say, but what we write doesn't always accomplish that aim. A writer should scrutinize what she's written over and over again. But even the most careful scribbler will miss flaws in her copy. That's why it's critical that someone else look at your work. The importance of that second and third pair of eyes examining your darling can't be overstated. That's why you must detach yourself from what you've written and listen closely to the advice of others. Does that mean that the readers who you invite to examine your work are always correct in their criticisms and suggestions? No. They can often be decidedly wrong. But you must objectively weigh what they say and choose whether to change your work. The more detachment you've developed, the more objectively you'll be able to consider suggestions, which often are helpful – more times than we would like to admit.

Of course, suggestions aren't always what you're dealing with. Depending on your situation, you may have no choice but to accept them. That news release you toiled over for a week could be hacked and retooled to the the point where it's unrecognizable. You can rail against the injustice of it, or if you've a hide thick enough to stop a bullet, you can view things philosophically and console yourself that you did the best you could.

Being able to detach yourself from your work is easy to say, but, depending on your personality, it may be hard to do. I wish I could offer some advice to thin-skinned folks about adding tough layers to their epidermis. But in nearly a quarter of a century of professional writing, I'm still working on mine, though I'm happy to report progress. It's now about as bulky as tissue paper.

Adjectives: A little dab'll do ya

Mark Twain said, "If you catch an adjective, kill it." That's both sound and memorable advice. The idea being that overuse of adjectives (words that describe nouns) can clutter writing and rob it of its vigor. Strong, colorful verbs should be your primary workers in a sentence. But that doesn't mean that adjectives aren't useful – even in business writing -- and it's wise to have a sizable and varied collection of them, as well as a sharp feel for how and when to use them.

Treat adjectives the way a cook treats a powerful spice, sparingly.There's also a fundamental rule to remember when you shove more than one adjective in front of a noun. Like two feuding kids, adjectives must sometimes be separated. A comma is the proper tool for the job, but before slapping one in between two adjectives, you need to determine first if the comma is necessary by asking two questions, both of which are intended to determine if the adjectives are equal in rank.

First question: If and is inserted between the two adjectives, will the sentence still make sense?: "He is a congenial and dapper gentlemen." In this instance, and works, so you would use a comma to separate the adjectives, "...a congenial, dapper gentlemen."

Second question: Can the two adjectives be used interchangeably? In the above example, yes. You could write "...a dapper, congenial gentlemen" and the sentence would still read correctly.

Now let's look at an example in which the two questions reveal that you have adjectives that are unequal in rank and must not be separated by a comma: "The old stone house no longer stands." If you insert and between old and stone, the sentence reads awkwardly. Likewise, should you swap the positions of stone and old, the sentence appears nonsensical. That's because stone is an integral part of the phrase "stone house." It doesn't have equal footing with old as a modifier of the house. You could say "decrepit stone house," "rambling stone house," or plug in any number of other adjectives, but stone and house stay together as a unit, also known as a noun phrase, and no comma separates stone from the adjective that appears before it.

I'll close with a couple of other examples that illustrate both equal and unequal adjectives: "The tattered blue suit," "He rode a new, 10-speed blue bicycle."

What's the matter with that?

The word that has its uses, but when used unnecessarily, it has the same effect as eating a spoonful of peanut butter – it can gum things up in a hurry.

Used properly, that can act as an adjective, "That man is annoying me." It also can serve ably as a pronoun (a word that fills in for a noun), "That just steams me," or "This is a subject that I enjoy talking about."

Too often, though, that just wanders into a sentence and stands there, doing nothing and getting in the way. Such is the case with:

-- She said that she wanted to go home

-- The witness admitted that he lied.

-- Mary said that she's willing to do the report.

In each of these instances, you could strip that out of the sentence and not only would it be grammatically correct, it would read more smoothly.

The next time you're uncertain whether that is being used properly, try your copy without it. If it still reads correctly, have that stand aside for when it's really needed.

Toil and trouble

With this bit of text from Macbeth, I'll return to the Shakespeare reference that I used a couple of posts ago when I blogged about the difference between compare to and compare with. Here are a few more commonly confused words and phrases that, once you're aware of the simple rules that accompany them, should trouble you no more:

-- affect/effect: Affect is typically a verb, meaning to influence or cause. "The cold weather affected employees, prompting them to bundle up." Effect usually is a noun, meaning impact or consequence. "One effect of the cold weather is that employees dressed warmer."

-- all right/alright: Just remember this, it's not all right to write alright. Two words, not one.

-- underway/under way: Same here. Two words. "The ambitious project already is under way."

-- over/more than: Though this pair often is used interchangeably, there is a difference. Over refers to a spatial relationship, as in, "The cow jumped over the moon." More than is used when talking about specific numbers or quantities, as in, "More than 15 people missed work the day after the big game."

-- less/fewer: Use less when you're talking about bulk quantities that can't be counted or measured, and fewer when referring to quantities that can be counted or measured. Here's a sentence to help you remember: "I have fewer chores but less energy to do them." Chores, you can count. The amount of energy you have isn't something that can be counted or measured.

-- can/may: Use can when you want to establish a subject's ability to do something. "Can you win the race?" May is used to denote possibility or permission, as in, "May I have this dance?"

-- lend/loan: Lend is a verb, meaning to give someone something temporarily. "If you lend me your car, I'll put gas in it." Loan is usually a noun referring to a bank's providing you money that you agree to pay back.

Did you ever imagine there would be so many rules? There's plenty more, too.No wonder English has such a notorious reputation as being a difficult language to learn.

It's an ad, ad world

If you're tired of being swamped with ads, please raise your hand. That's what I thought. Ads are everywhere. When I pump gas, there's an ad on the pump handle, when I go to a restroom in a business, there's an ad hung over the urinal (makes you miss the obscene graffiti). Inside the corner, corporate-owned convenience store, the minimum-wage workers behind the counter are festooned with badges and other items hawking some product or service. Where's it going to end? To pay for my funeral, I'm considering selling space on my casket. What? That's already been done? Shucks.

Confronted with increasingly jaded consumers, many of whom are now armed with digital video recorders that allow them to speed through TV commercials, the ad world is becoming as desperate as a trailing politician on election day. They'll do anything to get your attention.

Now, they're trying to reach you via video-screen messages played in public. As described in a story in the Los Angeles Times, the ad industry is using flat-screen technology to pester you while you mosey down the aisles at the local grocer or devour a burger at your favorite fast-food spot. They're even slapping tiny screens on hand dryers in restrooms.

What does this have to do with writing? I think the contortions the ad industry is undergoing are good news for communicators who tell their stories the old fashioned way – one carefully crafted word at a time. Ads must engage. Yes, you can do that with splashy video, blaring music and graphics that come at you like a shotgun blast. But people are tiring of that. There's more and more room in advertising and marketing for quietly and convincingly persuading consumers with genuine stories told in an engaging manner.

So, wordsmiths, keep your pencils sharp and your vocabulary honed. The pen may not only be mightier than the sword, it may even vanquish the video screen.

How Shall I Compare Thee?

It's estimated that Shakespeare, the author of the memorable line above, had a vocabulary consisting of about 30,000 words, which is remarkable, especially when you compare the number of words he had at his command with the nearly 6,000-word vocabulary possessed by us less worthy wordsmiths.

Speaking of compare, I wonder how The Bard would have dealt with a common point of confusion among modern-day writers regarding that word: Should compare should be coupled with to or with, as in, "Authoring blog posts can be compared with/to putting money in the bank -- try to do both regularly." The answer is to.

Here's the rule (bet you didn't know there was one, did you?), use compare with when making a literal or statistical comparison, as I did in comparing Shakespeare's vocabulary count with the normal person's. Likewise, you might write, "Our sales figures this year are up when compared with last year's." Use compare to, when making figurative comparisons, as I did in comparing blog posting to saving money. Another example would be, "He compared finishing the long, difficult project to digging a ditch with a teaspoon.

English has a host of usage rules like the one for compare to/with. Mastering them all can be challenging. But if you succeed, people may start comparing thee to a wise old bird.

There's always hope(fully)

How many times today have you used the word hopefully? Hopefully, it won't rain today. I'll be home at 6, hopefully. Hopefully, I'll get that raise I've been wanting. Hopefully, our team will win.

If you uttered any sentences using this popular adverb in this fashion, you're wrong! Or at least that's what some grammarians would insist. "When Words Collide," the excellent book on grammar and usage that I use in my writing class, calls hopefully "possibly the single most abused word in our language." "When Words Collide" goes on to explain that most of the misuse of hopefully occurs when people use it to mean "it is hoped" or "let us hope," and that's incorrect, the book proclaims.

Hopefully is an adverb that is intended to describe how a subject feels – hopeful. So, when used properly, hopefully means "with hope" or "in a hopeful manner." A proper usage would be, "Hopefully, the underdogs took to the field, looking for a win."

But not everyone agrees with Lauren Kessler and Duncan McDonald, the authors of "When Words Collide." Patricia T. O'Conner, who wrote the popular "Woe Is I," says it's "hopeless to resist the evolution of hopefully." Go ahead and use it to mean "it is hoped" or "let us hope," O'Conner breezily advises her readers. Her point is that language is always changing and we must accept that. Those who think otherwise are derided by O'Conner as sticklers and purists.

O'Conner – whose book I like – is certainly right about the evolving nature of language and it's likely that the misuse of hopefully is now permanent. But these conflicting opinions regarding hopefully touch on the broader, ongoing issue of whether changes in the language should be accepted with little more than some feeble grumbling from a few blue-haired malcontents who read the Oxford dictionary for fun.

Should language change slowly, like the wording of the Constitution, or should it be treated like tabloid copy, subject to whims and splashy fads that change daily? I prefer the glacial approach, though I also try not to be snobbish about it.

As is often the case, the difference between writing and speaking correctly is a matter of first becoming aware of the correct way and then focusing on adhering to it. Since becoming aware of the proper use of hopefully, I've adjusted my speaking and writing accordingly. Like a person trying to stop swearing, I commit the occasional slip-up, but I use the word correctly most of the time now, and when I really want to say "it is hoped," I say that. At least I hope I do.

Thus quoth...the client

I like Dan Santow's advice to public relations practitioners and copywriters who are tasked with assembling a quote for a client.

Dan provides such helpful tips as making sure the quote advances the "story," that it sounds like something that someone might have actually said and that it doesn't make the client sound like a moron.

I'd like to add two more:

-- Make the quote colorful, if possible. In other words, don't have the client utter something stale like, "We're pleased about being named XYZ Corp.'s top vendor." Instead, try, "Being named XYZ Corp.'s top vendor has all of us walking a little taller these days."

-- Avoid using cliches in a quote (or in any other part of your copy), as in, "We expect this product to sell like hot cakes." Even if people use cliches in their everyday speech, these empty, overworked phrases aren't memorable and they say little. When writing a quote for a news release, the hope is that the resulting news story will include it. Using a cliche greatly reduces the chance of that occurring.

Next question! Interviewing tips

In my last post, I talked about how effective communication seems to be more and more scarce. One practical form of communicating is interviewing, a task writers in any number of settings are often required to undertake. A reporter quizzes a cop to collect details for a crime story. A copywriter questions a client to corral details about a product. A public relations practitioner interviews sources to mine the raw material for news releases, speeches and articles.

As with other types of communication, interviewing is subject to rules that if followed will make the process go more smoothly and will produce better results. Here are a few that are appropriate in a business or organizational setting:

-- Prepare yourself. Review research material. Develop a list of questions. But remember that just because you have a list of questions, you should be willing to depart from it if your subject's answers suggest a new line of inquiry.

-- Urge your subject to express him or herself in terms you understand. Many people being questioned cling to the lingo of their job or speciality with the doggedness of a prosecutor grilling a witness. If you understand the jargon, that's okay. You can simplify or explain it, if necessary, when you write. But if not, make them explain. You can't write what you don't understand.

-- Collect more details than you think you'll need. When you sit down to write, it's better to have more material than not enough. Plus, you can't always be sure of the full scope of your piece until you start pounding away at the keyboard.

-- Don't assume. Seldom a good idea and certainly not when you're collecting details for a writing project. It's better to ask what may seem like an obvious question than to guess that you know what someone's saying.

-- Take good notes. Sounds obvious, but not everyone does. "I'll remember that later," the careless interviewer thinks. Not always and maybe not accurately. Not only do I try to take thorough notes, I annotate them with a red pen as soon as possible after the interview to clarify my often sloppy scrawl. (I envy those who know shorthand or can swiftly jot notes.)

-- Tape recorders. Some writers use them routinely. I rarely do and for several reasons. First of all, they're subject to breaking or suffering some other malfunction, so if you're wise, you'll take careful notes anyway. Secondly, if you rely on a tape recorder, you need to scroll back through the tape to check quotes and other details your subject provided, which is a waste of time. Tape recorders also can cause some interview subjects to freeze up. They don't like the idea of their every word being recorded. I'm not saying using tape recorders is wrong. They can be a helpful backup to your notes. But always take good notes.

-- Double-check name spellings and titles. Submitting copy, even in rough draft form, with a misspelled name or an incorrect title marks you as a sloppy writer. "What else did he get wrong?" people who read the piece might wonder.

-- Don't be afraid to follow up after the interview to clarify information. Many writers hesitate to do this, thinking it makes them look unprofessional or inattentive. But the opposite is true. Most interview subjects will respect your thoroughness and attention to detail.

Hello Goodbye

I'm not sure what, if any, meaning lies behind the Beatles song "Hello Goodbye," but its offbeat title and catchy lyrics could point to a significant problem facing many of us: We're just not communicating well. Not orally and certainly not in writing.

An article that appeared recently in the online version of the Akron [Ohio] Beacon Journal noted that "in many situations, people do not communicate (exchange intended meaning), but rather are merely taking turns talking." The author, Robert D. Smith, is spot-on with that observation. Have you ever been speaking to someone and noticed the person vacantly looking past you? Do you occasionally catch your "listener" woodenly uttering "uh-huh" at the appropriate moments? How many times have you been the guilty party? I know I have.

Smith notes that management consultant Peter Drucker has declared that "poor communication is responsible for more than 60 percent of all organization problems." Between 50 percent and 90 percent of a manager's time is spent in some form of communication and they often assume they're communicating effectively, but actually they're not, Smith says. Signs of faulty communication within an organization include missed deadlines, sagging productivity, low morale, high turnover and meetings that accomplish nothing. Sound familiar?

Smith recommends that we continually monitor our communications skills and ask for feedback from others. That's an idea that would work particularly well with written communications. Give your ego a time-out and invite a colleague to take a red pen and go over something you've authored.

Another sound suggestion for bettering communication is to become an attentive listener. "Look at the person speaking to you, ask questions, don't change the subject, don't interrupt, empathize, and respond verbally as well as non-verbally," Smith advises. Those rules for behavior are good in any oral exchange and they're especially helpful when the communication setting is an interview that's being conducted by a writer who's gathering information. Interview subjects tend to open up when they believe they're being closely listened to.

Humans have always had difficulty communicating effectively (otherwise, we'd have fewer wars) and we are likely to continue doing so. But we don't have to give up. Those who polish their communication skills – oral and written – are often highly prized in any business or organization. Make up your mind to focus on communicating effectively and you're already further ahead than most. "I say go, go, go."

Simple is better

If, in the near future, you can read your credit card statement, thank the Federal Reserve. The regulatory agency is proposing new rules that would require credit card companies to make several changes in credit card bills and solicitations, including making them easier to read.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is calling for "greater clarity" in these documents, which are typically loaded with minuscule print and language so dense you need a machete to chop through to its real meaning. The new regs will force companies to say what they really mean by using simple language and straightforward sentence structure.

I wish all business communications focused on that aim. One of the benchmarks of effective communications is simplicity, yet it's one of the most ignored principles in business writing, which is too often jammed with jargon, with complex, meandering sentences that lead no where and with a style that seems as if the writer is not trying to communicate but to confound.

What good is a piece of writing that is so confusing that no one can understand what it's trying to say? The time of everyone involved in such a communication is wasted, yet you see it every day.

In the wonderful movie Philadelphia, Denzel Washington played a street-savvy lawyer who would often tell people who were trying to convey some complicated information to him to "explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader." I often remember that line and have even used it when I'm interviewing a subject about a complex topic. It usually helps the subject understand the need to break things down into simple terms, though occasionally it exposes the fact that the subject doesn't fully understand what he or she is trying to say and is using bloated, confusing language to hide the fact. The person might even resent or resist your effort to get them to simplify. So be it. It's more important to work that out through the writing process than to parrot the gobbledygook the subject is using and spread the confusion around.

Though in the case of credit card companies it's taking a law to compel them to simplify their communications, your business or organization shouldn't wait to be similarly prodded.

World of confusion

You'll get little argument to the proposition that the rules for English grammar and usage are confusing and contradictory. There are plenty of reasons for this, and one is that even the experts can't always agree on what's right.

Take the issue of since and because, which I blogged about on 4.25.07. "When Words Collide," the textbook that I use in my university level writing class, says the two words have different uses and shouldn't be freely swapped. That is, don't use since to mean because. The rule makes sense to me and it's not a hard one to remember. Each semester, I teach it to my students.

But in her popular volume on grammar, "Woe Is I," author Patricia T. O'Conner dismisses the since/because issue as the sort of nitpicking that only "an extremely conservative grammarian" would engage in. She goes on to advise her readers to forget that they ever heard the rule, which she trashes in a chapter entitled "The Living Dead."

I have O'Conner's book, and I find it a fun, helpful read. But I'll probably stick with what "When Words Collide," another worthy reference, decrees about since and because, and continue teaching it to my classes. Why? Because as e-mail, texting and instant messaging become popular, grammar and usage rules are being increasingly trashed. I hate to subscribe to slippery slope arguments, but in some instances – this being one – they're fitting. In another generation, our written language may be unrecognizable and incomprehensible, reduced to sporting the cryptic communication value of graffiti.

Let's take a stand on rules that make sense and are easily grasped, like the one for since and because. Sure, the conventions of grammar must change. They always have. But they should be careful and reasoned changes, not whimsical and convenient ones.

Breaking down the babel

It's a problem that troubles both journalists and business writers – making the complex more understandable to a broader audience.

As the writer in such a scenario, your job often entails gathering information from sources through interviews. Often, particularly if the subject is a technical one, the source is going to sling at you the jargon he or she is accustomed to. They'll yammer on in the specialized lingo born of a thousand meetings and interdepartmental memos. If the intended audience of the piece understands that jargon and you – the writer – do also, then it's not too hard to transform the interview into readable copy.

The challenge, though, lies in those situations when the intended audience may not fully understand the terminology used by your interview subject and you, as the writer, don't either. Now is where you really earn your chops as a communicator. You must gently coax the subject into explaining:

-- What do you mean by that term?

-- How can we explain this in simpler language?

-- Pretend you're trying to tell this to a group of intelligent high school students.

Those are the sorts of questions you can ask to prompt the subject to simplify. Usually, the interviewee grasps the need to step away from the jargon he or she is accustomed to and will work with you. Sometimes, though, you can't pry a single, simple sentence from the subject. Maybe the person is more comfortable speaking this way, or perhaps they're afraid that by simplifying, meaning will be lost, though this is rarely the case.

These situations can be frustrating, but you must soldier on. Try harder. Once a source sees that you won't accept their vague, overly technical wording, then they'll usually cooperate. You owe it to your readers to at least try. Don't give up and merely parrot the gobbledygook that your sources mouth. There's too much of that already going on in the business world.

Copy that fails to communicate is a waste of time. Just like the biblical Tower of Babel, it may look impressive but it goes nowhere.

Looking for meaning

One of the points I try to make to my writing students is that to become a skilled writer you should have an affection for language and its uses and complexities. You need to care about the meanings and nuances of words, you must develop an appreciative ear for the sound and rhythm of a finely crafted sentence and you should always try to incorporate imagery, similes and metaphors into your writing.

Some people who are drawn to writing have a natural fondness for these things. If you don't, but it's still important for you to be able to write well, I suggest you acquire at least a familiarity with the things I listed above. Doing so will help you communicate better.

In some cases, exploring the intricacies of language can be fun, interesting and informative, too. Consider idioms. An idiom is an expression that has a meaning that's different from the meanings of its individual words. "It's raining cats and dogs" and "I heard it on the grapevine" are two examples of idioms. Idioms shouldn't be confused with clichés, which are commonplace, overused phrases such as "tried and true" or "on the other hand." You should avoid using clichés in your writing as much as possible. Idioms also should be shunned. The reason, in both instances, is that the use of clichés and idioms means a writer isn't trying to come up with his or her original, more precise way of saying things and is, instead, relying on stock phrases that may not even express exactly what the writer is trying to convey.

Idioms can be an interesting study for anyone (writers in particular) who want to understand language more deeply. We often use idioms, but we seldom ponder their origins. "Wait your turn," for example, refers to the days when farmers took their grain to the mill and waited in line for it to be placed under the turning mill wheel to be ground. "Your name is mud" is derived from the name of the doctor, Samuel Mudd, who attended John Wilkes Booth, who broke his leg when he jumped from the balcony at Ford's Theater after assassinating President Lincoln. The expression "break a leg" has its roots in the same historic event.

As you can see, the history behind many expressions is intriguing and informative. Look up a few yourself on phrases.org. But be careful, it can become addictive. Before long, you'll be able to put your best foot forward when it comes your understanding and appreciation of language.

Use adjectives sparingly

A couple of posts ago I suggested using Word's synonym-finder as a handy tool for livening up your writing by varying your verbs and adjectives. Maybe now, though, is a good time to offer a bit of related advice. Go easy on the adjectives, which are words used to modify nouns and pronouns, as in the wide river or she's tall.

Some writers, particularly those who are still learning the craft, tend to sprinkle adjectives liberally into their copy, like a chef adding spices to a sauce. Certainly, like a spice, a carefully chosen, creative adjective can enhance the flavor of your prose. But too many adjectives, or sloppily chosen ones, can ruin your writing. The prudent writer uses adjectives sparingly, choosing, instead, to let verbs and nouns do the heavy lifting in a sentence. That's why Mark Twain is said to have declared, "If you catch an adjective, kill it." Sound advice. Learn to recognize adjectives and toss them into your initial draft. But when you revise, look at them with the critical eye of a drill sergeant inspecting a recruit's uniform for flaws. If the adjective is weak, inappropriate or simply unnecessary, take Twain's advice and kill it.

Twain's memorable suggestion, by the way, is the title of a new grammar book by Ben Yagoda. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it would be a helpful volume. The New York Times has excerpted its first chapter.

This fall, I'm considering tweaking Twain's advice and advising my university-level writing students, "If you catch a cliche, kill it." As I've written before, overuse of cliches is another practice that clutters and weakens writing. All this talk of killing. It makes writing seem more like a homicidal act than one of creation and inspiration.

Variety is the spice of sentences

Ever hear a speaker drone on in a monotone? It doesn't take long before you're stifling a yawn and are ready to interrupt his spiel, excuse yourself or simply grit your teeth and hope he'll tire soon.

In writing, there's an equivalent to the monotone speaker. It's writing using repetitious sentence structures. That can mean assembling a string of sentences like, "Acme is launching a new sales campaign. The campaign will start in June. Everyone is expected to participate." There's nothing grammatically wrong with these sentences, but they're repetitive in length and in their simple structure. Each starts with a subject (Acme, the campaign, Everyone) that's followed by a verb and an object. Hook enough of these subject-verb-object sentences together and you'll soon have readers eyes' going glassy.

The solution is to vary sentence length and structure. Combine short, simple sentences like those above with longer, more complex sentences that include introductory clauses (Given the need to boost sales, Acme is launching a new sales campaign.), and parenthetical clauses (Everyone, including middle managers and C-suite personnel, is expected to participate.).

Keeping this simple concept of sentence variety in mind will spice up your copy and help prevent your written work from resembling a grade-school reading book.

Surfing for snappy synonyms

One of the features of lively writing is a varied use of verbs and adjectives. Verbs tackle the action of a sentence. Adjectives help describe and limit nouns: "a sweltering day," "four soldiers." Unfortunately, too many writers plod along with the same vocabulary they've always used and have grown comfortable with, rarely daring to stray beyond the narrow boundaries of their verbal back yard.

There's help for this timidity, and it's only a mouse click away, if you use the popular Microsoft Word for your writing tasks. Let's say you've composed this sentence: "It's important to rig heavy equipment properly before moving it." And let's also suppose that you want to add some sparkle to it. Good idea! Just move your cursor to the word "important," click on it, then, keeping the flashing vertical bar on the word, right click. That should bring up an options box that includes one for "synonyms" (words with similar meanings). Click on that option and a useful list of synonyms for "important" appears on your screen. There are several sound choices on this list: vital, essential, imperative. Let's choose "vital." Just point and click. Word swaps "important" with "vital." Congratulations, you've just replaced a good but overused word with a suitable synonym that possesses more snap.

After you get accustomed to using the synonym function, you're likely to return to it frequently. But beware. You can't choose just any word on the synonym list Word provides. Some of the choices may not precisely fit the meaning or connotation that you want in a sentence. Using the sample sentence above as an example, Word's synonym list for "important" included "chief," which doesn't work. If doubtful, consult a dictionary. If still doubtful, or pressed for time, stick with your first choice, as long as it's a correct one. You'll have countless other chances to dress up your copy with dynamic words.

There's another benefit to liberally consulting the synonym finder: It'll sharpen and broaden your vocabulary.

Reporters' bible helpful aid for all wordsmiths

One of the handiest reference works available for writers is The Associated Press Stylebook. This invaluable volume has been used for decades, not only by reporters but people in PR, advertising and other professional writing settings. Though many usage and some grammar rules vary according to what style source you're consulting, an argument could be made that the AP stylebook is probably the most consulted.

If your job entails handling a lot of writing chores, get this respected reference work. Many book-store chains carry it, or you can order it directly from AP. Though a new edition comes out yearly, you don't have to buy a new copy that often. As helpful as the stylebook is for solving grammar and punctuation questions, its in-depth approach can make some information difficult to track down. That's why lists of common usages that have been extracted from the stylebook by a knowledgeable editor are particularly prized. Dan Santow, who pens the Word Wise blog, has assembled a practical list of AP style for various computer terms such as Web, URL and Internet. Dan's list gives you the AP take on this technical lingo without your having to burrow into the stylebook itself.

But you can't always rely on someone else's having gathered the information for you, so get your own copy of the book. You'll soon find it heavily annotated, dog-earred and bristling with sticky notes.

If you build it, they will read

Ever read something and wonder, "What is this writer trying to say?" Often, the problem is a lack of structure. Just as a house needs a solid foundation, strong supporting walls and a sturdy roof, a piece of writing needs a robust and clearly identified structure.

Any piece of writing that reaches beyond the basic communication goal of an e-mail or blog post should be fashioned from three primary structural elements: introduction, body and conclusion. Put another way, you can build a worthy piece of writing by following these three steps:

1. Tell the readers what you're going to tell them.

2. Tell it.

3. Tell them what you just told them.

Writers often fail in their introduction to clearly tell readers what it is they're going to tell them. Too many writers tiptoe into a piece, failing to get to the point of why they're writing and why the audience should read it. Before long the reader is confused or frustrated and is unlikely to keep reading. Depending on the communication, you must either get to the point immediately (a business letter is a good example) or within the first two to three paragraphs (as might be the case if you're writing an article for a corporation's e-newsletter).

Once you've stated the purpose of the piece, then share the information that's at the heart of it. Are you making an argument, sharing details, offering a proposal, presenting evidence? This is the "tell it" part I referred to above. Make sure you arrange your information in a logical order.

Next, write a conclusion that reviews and sums up what you've just written. This is where you tell the readers what you've just told them. A forceful conclusion briefly reviews and reinforces the information you wanted to share. Try to construct a memorable ending. If you've kept the reader's attention until the end, you can make a lasting impression by finishing strongly.

Forget what your English teacher told you

Instances abound in writing that involve confusion between the use of various pairs of words. Often, the confusion exists because the two words in a pair sound alike. But not always. Take the example of since and because.

These two are often used interchangeably although they sound nothing alike and each has a different meaning. Since should be used only when were referring to a specific time or a period of time as in, "I haven't eaten since 6 a.m." or, "The weather's been lousy since yesterday."

Because provides a reason or refers to a cause: "Because you were late, we've missed the start of the show" or, to use because and since properly in a single sentence, "I'm hungry because I haven't eaten since 6 a.m."

Usually the offending usage occurs when writers swap since for because: "Since you were late, we've missed the start of the show." That's wrong.

How did this confusion come about? Because seems to be one of those words that have a murky, though undeserved, reputation, often as the result of something people vaguely remember from junior-high English class. Many teachers once scolded their charges for using because to start a sentence, claiming it was a no-no. That simple but incorrect rule stuck, and now you have many people using since when they should be using because.

Scrap that idea! There's nothing wrong with using because to start a sentence, as skillfully explained by Joanne Feierman in the "Five Lies Your English Teacher Told You" section of her book on grammar and usage.

I hope this clears things up. Because I believe I've fully covered this topic, I'll close now and have lunch. I haven't eaten since 6 a.m.

Be wary when making promotional pitches

If you want some good tips on dealing with the media, check out the Reporters and Editors blog at Public Relations Ideas. There are some sound suggestions there.

I wish I could say the same for other public realations ideas I see online. Though I'm in PR myself now, I previously worked as reporter for a large daily newspaper for 20 years and have a journalists' natural wariness of PR. I've always believed that good PR practitioners are invaluable aids to journalists. But, frankly, there are a lot of them who don't understand the news business and see reporters as nothing more than troublesome but necessary conduits to getting their clients some ink.

That attitude often is evident in online advice by PR people on how to grab reporters' and editors' attention. Many of the tips are good, but there are also loads of weak promotional gimmicks being suggested that reporters will quickly see for what they are. Nothing irks a reporter more than having a PR person pitch a "story idea" that's no more than a thinly veiled ruse aimed at getting a news outlet to give a client some free advertising. Journalists don't like being used any more than anyone else does and asking them to bite on a cheap PR stunt is the same as calling and saying, "Look, I think you're so stupid that you'll go for this ..." Make a pitch like that and your credibility with that journalist will instantly plummet.

One online PR pundit recently suggested having a magician perform at a bank opening. Please. That's one step up from a ribbon-cutting or check presentation, but not much of an improvement. Small dailies and weeklies might cover this fluff, but it's rare that you'll get a bigger outlet to pick it up unless maybe it's a slooow news day.

If you want reporters to publicize your event or do a story on your business or organization, you need to tie your pitch for coverage to something newsworthy. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't stage an event with the hope of getting news coverage. Just try to put on something of real interest like a 5K intended to benefit a good cause. One of my clients recently created a program in which construction contractors donated time and materials to rehab the homes of disabled veterans wounded since 9/11. That worthy effort netted lots of coverage.

If you're stumped for an idea on what to stage, try thinking about something that will help others or the community as a whole. Then write a well-crafted news release and make your pitch. Even if a reporter or editor doesn't go for it, they'll at least appreciate that you didn't try to outwit them with a flimsy promotional ploy.

Stay out of the rough

In my last post, I offered a Sherlockian tip on how to polish your writing by paring out the clutter that often creeps in. Below are other tips on smoothing the rough edges of your text before it's sent on its way.

Once you have gone through a few rewrites and you've applied the 10 Percent Solution (see my last post), walk away from the piece for an hour at least. If you have time, shelf it for a day or two. Then try any or of these proofing and polishing techniques:

-- Read through your copy backward. Doing so breaks up the tendency of your brain (as the writer) to miss typos, poor sentence constructions and a gaggle of other problems.

-- Read it out loud with feeling, as though you were presenting it in a packed auditorium. This is another way of catching flaws, particularly awkward phrasing and repetition.

-- Have someone read it out loud to you. Listen for where they stumble on your words. Watch to see if they're scrunching up their brow at something that puzzles them or doesn't sound right. That should alert you to trouble spots.

-- Most of us write on a computer. Try printing a hard copy of what you've written and scrutinize it with all the care of a fortune-teller peering at tea leaves. Sometimes just looking at something you've written through a different medium helps you catch mistakes.

-- As a corollary to the tip above, temporarily format your piece in a huge point size, like 24 or even bigger. This large-print version breaks up sentences more and forces your eye to move differently over the piece, often exposing blemishes.

OK, now I'm going to sound like your junior-high English teacher for a moment, but somebody has to do it: Well-crafted writing is all about revision. If you're in the habit of knocking something out and shipping it with barely a read-through, please stop. The rough draft is just that – "rough." Rare is the writer who gets it perfect the first time. Think of it this way: Proper polishing prevents piss-poor prose. Class adjourned.

It's elementary

Everyone's heard of Sherlock Holmes, but only serious fans are aware of a nasty addiction he had – cocaine. When bored, the fictional detective sometimes plunged a syringe in his forearm and shot himself up with a "7 percent solution" of cocaine.

So, what does Holmes' illicit habit have to do with good writing? A few years ago columnist Chip Scanlan, who writes for the journalism Web site Poynter.org., recommended a writing-revision method inspired by Holmesian lore. It's known as the "10 Percent Solution." Scanlan noted that Stephen King actually coined the term for this effective method of polishing a letter, memo, article or any other piece of writing. Whatever the origin, it's a great idea, and here's how it works:

Once you have a piece in fairly good shape -- meaning it's structured the way you want, includes all the detail you want and you've revised it at least once – then count how many words its contains (most word processing software has a handy word-count function built in). Let's say your word count is 1,500. Then, applying the 10 Percent Solution, you would take 10 percent of your count, 150 words, and reduce your copy by that much, paring the 1,500-word piece to 1,350 words. Here's an important concept to remember, though. Don't trim by trashing important information or other structural elements. Do so by cutting out the clutter: cliches, intensifiers like "very" and "really," awkward sentences and the like.

Properly administered, the 10 Percent Solution will help you produce more readable, concise copy. Like Holmes' fondness for cocaine, this method of revision works so well it could even become addictive.

In writing, less is often more

Kenneth W. Davis' excellent writing blog, Manage Your Writing, recently referred to a quote by 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal: "I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

Pascal's quill pen certainly scratched out a truism. Regarding Pascal's observation, Davis cogently notes that "economy in writing takes time. But it's time well spent."

I agree with both writers. In writing, more is rarely better. Whenever you can, take the time to polish and pare your early drafts. The best writing starts with a thicket of thoughts, ideas and insights that is then pruned into the stuff of pure inspiration. Boil your writing down into language that communicates with the reader with all the energy and immediacy of a lightning bolt. Learn to review your work and chop out the clutter, the cliches and the awkward constructions. Trash intensifiers like "very" and "really." Repetitious thoughts, words and phrases are another set of traps that lengthen a piece of writing and string cobwebs in the reader's mind. As Thoreau said, "simplify."

Don't worry that all this cutting and simplifying will make you sound like a first grader. It won't. Instead, your writing will be lean and muscular. Every word will count, and that's what you want.

What's your story?

Want to get your business or organization talked about in the press or online? Would you like to land a spot on the nightly news? Then you need to recognize your "story." What is it about your enterprise that people will find interesting?

Many companies and organizations have great stories but they fail to recognize them. Instead, they send out news-less news releases cluttered with promotional fluff and wonder why they can't get any press – a subject I discussed in my last post.

Recognizing your particular story isn't always easy. You need to think like a reporter. News folks are always looking for something new, unusual or interesting. They want stories about people and how they've overcome challenges. They want tales that will make for captivating photos or video. A good way to get attuned to those features is to read news and to watch TV news programs, then scrutinize your own organization or business. It's rare that there's not a story buried there somewhere.

Maybe your enterprise was founded by a couple of blue-collar, hands-on guys who are now millionaires. The public loves those rags-to-riches yarns. Does your company manufacture an unusual product, or has someone found a new way to use what you make? Could be a story there, too. Perhaps you've instituted a program that trains underprivileged youths in your trade. That could earn you some ink as well.

There are countless situations that could qualify as news. Focus on "story" and you may find some hidden gems in your own enterprise that the public would like to know about. Then it's time to write that news release. Just don't open with "Once upon a time. ..."

Writing news releases: It's "the news and nothing but the news"

During a recent session of my media writing class, I asked the group to name the most important aspect of a news release. I received lots of good answers: accuracy, conciseness, readability, etc. But I didn't get the response I was looking for from my students, many of whom are prospective public relations practitioners.

The most important element of a news release is that it contains news. That may sound simplistic, but an astounding number of news releases don't convey news. They're ads or self-serving bits of promotion that have been tarted up to look like news releases. They provide details on sales campaigns, pricing plans, a change in a product line or some other bit of information that is rarely of any interest to news outlets.

You won't trick many editors or news directors into running a free ad for you on their news pages or in their newscasts. In fact, if you send out enough news-less news releases to the same media outlets, you'll soon lose your credibility with them.

As someone who spent more than two decades in the news business and who has looked at thousands of news releases, I can tell you that promotional fluff will be spotted in seconds and instantly pitched into the trash or erased from an e-mail inbox.

A book could be written on writing news releases. But if you start from the standpoint of issuing them only when you have actual news to convey and then putting that information at the very beginning of the release, you'll have licked the biggest obstacle to getting a placement.

So, what's news? Generally speaking it's any event or occurrence that could be described as new, unusual or of interest to a fairly broad audience of news readers or listeners. Your new pricing plan or branding effort probably isn't news. Your decision to hire a new CEO, add employees or bricks and mortar probably is. To help you establish a better sense of what constitutes news, routinely read the publications and Web sites where you'd like your news to appear. You'll soon get the idea of what makes it on the page and what doesn't.

Technorati Profile

Give your writing some time

Writing is like a good wine. It's better when aged. Think of the times that you hurriedly composed something, gave it a quick read-through and shipped it off to its recipient, only to later discover that it contained spelling errors or sloppy grammar flaws. You might shrug it off with, "So what? Nobody worries about that sort of thing anymore." But they should. After all, sloppy writing -- like a weak, clammy handshake, a run in your stocking or a stain on your tie -- says something about you. Something not very flattering.

Maybe a grammar or spelling error or a typo wasn't buried in your copy. There are worse flaws. Perhaps you crafted a fuzzy, awkwardly worded sentence, or you put in a factual error or inserted a double-entendre that will be passed around the office like a juicy rumor.

So, like a good wine, let your writing age. Before you press the send button or slip that envelope into the mailbox, try to move onto other things for at least an hour, then come back to the piece and re-examine what you wrote. You'll be stunned at how many typing errors or writing flaws that you didn't see the first time now stand out. That's because when you initially write something, your mind can trick you. The first draft has you so absorbed that you can gloss over spelling or grammar problems, or miss flaws in structure. Coming back to your writing after a break, enables you to scrutinize your work with fresh eyes. An hour is a good, basic aging period. But if you can spare several hours, or better yet, a day or two, it's even better. If you can't, if that e-mail, memo or blog entry must be shipped instantly, go ahead. Just beware of the literary landmines that it might contain and give it an extra-careful read-through before sending it.

Will you catch every flaw and slip in your writing? Probably not. I'm sure this blog, for example, has some goofs in it. But aging your writing will aid you in catching the worst of the errors and, with time, you'll get better at spotting trouble in your writing before someone else does.