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.