Donald V. Calamia (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} critic_don) wrote,@ 2008-04-17 20:33:00 |
|
SPACED OUT
Space.
While it might have been the final frontier for Captain James T. Kirk, it's the bane of existence for journalists. And here's why: There's never enough of it.
One of the realities of newspaper publishing is that the number of pages produced each issue is determined by the number of ads that are sold. More ads, more pages. And more pages means more stories. (Fewer ads, though, mean fewer pages and even fewer stories.)
But there's more: Because there are dozens of stories fighting for space each issue, the folks in charge editorial scream and holler at the folks in the layout and design department to work out just how many stories can fit into each issue - and what the size of each will be. Whatever gets decided during those debates, however, is always subject to change. (I've had stories pulled only minutes before the paper was put to bed safely at the printers. Luckily that doesn't happen very often!)
For our theater coverage each week in Between The Lines, we settled on a formula many years back: As the theater editor, I get one whole page to do with whatever I see fit - and what works best are two stories per issue, each running 500 words. If there are more than two stories or reviews each week, then I have to negotiate with "the powers that be" for additional space. Sometimes I get it; other times I don't - and then we move to "Plan B," which can vary. (Sometimes we'll squeeze three reviews on to a single page at 300 words each, or we'll start the review in the print edition and finish it online. Recently we had our critics submit two versions of their reviews: one at 500 words that we ran on EncoreMichigan.com, and an edited version at 300 words that appeared in Curtain Calls. I haven't decided which of those "Plan Bs" will be our regular "Plan B" in the future.)
So when I write my reviews, I always try to be mindful of that "500 word" wall that always looms ahead. But sometimes, it's just not possible to fit everything that needs to be said into 500 words. That's when the tough decisions have to be made: What do I cut? What piece of information does the reader NEED to know; which is NICE for them to know; and what's not necessary to know in a review?
From MY perspective, what often gets dropped when space is tight is acknowledgement of the technical people - unless some aspect of the production is especially noteworthy (good or bad). And if the production has a large cast, only the leads or the noteworthy performances are mentioned.
It's never an easy call, trust me. But I - and my fellow critics, I'm sure - struggle to try and write the most useful, informative and helpful reviews as we possibly can. And usually, I think, we're right on target.
Why am I telling you this? Find out in tomorrow's blog...
Space.
While it might have been the final frontier for Captain James T. Kirk, it's the bane of existence for journalists. And here's why: There's never enough of it.
One of the realities of newspaper publishing is that the number of pages produced each issue is determined by the number of ads that are sold. More ads, more pages. And more pages means more stories. (Fewer ads, though, mean fewer pages and even fewer stories.)
But there's more: Because there are dozens of stories fighting for space each issue, the folks in charge editorial scream and holler at the folks in the layout and design department to work out just how many stories can fit into each issue - and what the size of each will be. Whatever gets decided during those debates, however, is always subject to change. (I've had stories pulled only minutes before the paper was put to bed safely at the printers. Luckily that doesn't happen very often!)
For our theater coverage each week in Between The Lines, we settled on a formula many years back: As the theater editor, I get one whole page to do with whatever I see fit - and what works best are two stories per issue, each running 500 words. If there are more than two stories or reviews each week, then I have to negotiate with "the powers that be" for additional space. Sometimes I get it; other times I don't - and then we move to "Plan B," which can vary. (Sometimes we'll squeeze three reviews on to a single page at 300 words each, or we'll start the review in the print edition and finish it online. Recently we had our critics submit two versions of their reviews: one at 500 words that we ran on EncoreMichigan.com, and an edited version at 300 words that appeared in Curtain Calls. I haven't decided which of those "Plan Bs" will be our regular "Plan B" in the future.)
So when I write my reviews, I always try to be mindful of that "500 word" wall that always looms ahead. But sometimes, it's just not possible to fit everything that needs to be said into 500 words. That's when the tough decisions have to be made: What do I cut? What piece of information does the reader NEED to know; which is NICE for them to know; and what's not necessary to know in a review?
From MY perspective, what often gets dropped when space is tight is acknowledgement of the technical people - unless some aspect of the production is especially noteworthy (good or bad). And if the production has a large cast, only the leads or the noteworthy performances are mentioned.
It's never an easy call, trust me. But I - and my fellow critics, I'm sure - struggle to try and write the most useful, informative and helpful reviews as we possibly can. And usually, I think, we're right on target.
Why am I telling you this? Find out in tomorrow's blog...
