Find your voice with a good editor

As a writer, receiving a document riddled with red markings and comments from your editor can be disheartening. The late David Carr, a columnist and reporter at the New York Times, explained that, “A good editor is the enemy of clichés and tropes, but not the overburdened writer who occasionally resorts to them. Judgment, a good bedside manner and an ability to conjure occasional magic in the space between writer and editor is rare, but can produce treasure.”

A good editor is indeed rare but, once found, should be treasured. Clarity Editorial is passionate about championing good editors – people who understand your writing, check that your tone will not land you in hot water, organise your work and hone your argument to flow clearly and logically.

A love-hate relationship
As Jeff Goins has written, as a writer you may have a blind spot and be unable to notice some weak points in your own writing. Your editor’s perspective will help you strengthen your writing. Finding the balance between respecting the author’s voice and editing for clarity can be tricky, but a good editor will avoid imposing their own ideas onto your writing. The editor queries inconsistencies while respecting your style and voice.

A trusting relationship between you, the writer, and your editor is vital. Respect, empathy and effective communication helps to build a collaborative relationship. You should consider the editing process a learning experience, one that allows you to understand your writing style while finding your voice.

Empowering the writer
Perfect writing doesn’t exist but the art of exceptional writing can be learnt – with the help of a good editor. The editor’s job is not just to fix structure, style or content, but also to empower you. They will help you clarify your ideas by highlighting what works and questioning what doesn’t, providing the support that can encourage your growth as a writer. With an editor, you don’t have to obsess over perfect grammar and second-guess yourself as you write. Understand the editor’s queries or changes before accepting or declining them. The editor’s suggestions may improve the structure of your argument, find the perfect word or standardise your formatting, which can be useful. Sometimes though, the suggestions may change your meaning, tone or voice, so pay close attention to their edits!

A good editor should step into your shoes to understand your thought process while keeping in mind the reader and their possible questions. The editor doesn’t absolve you of responsibility towards your readers, but they act as a bridge.

Caring for the reader
It’s important to remember that your reader should be informed, provoked or otherwise engaged by what they read. Your editor will push you to provide a flowing, clear, logical piece of writing that eloquently describes your thoughts, making it easy to understand your objective and main points.

By working with a good editor, your writing can be honed into its most effective and expressive form, while retaining your individual style.

Follow Natasha on Twitter.

Published by Clarity Editorial.

A monumental language mistake for Momentum

“At Momentum we strive to eliminate pitfalls through dependable advice, informed assessments and compassionate service,” says Momentum Life Insurance on its website.

In a single sentence Momentum makes a number of promises that it recently failed to keep – with disastrous consequences for its reputation.

Let’s start with the first promise. The Collins Dictionary describes a pitfall as “a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty”.

In March last year, the Ganas family experienced an unexpected tragedy. Nathan Ganas was shot and killed in a hijacking attempt at his home in Durban. The family lost a breadwinner. Mrs Ganas placed an insurance claim of R2.4 million with Momentum, expecting the insurer to support her during this difficult time through dependable advice and compassionate service.

But Momentum refused to honour its commitment to this client on the basis that Mr Ganas had an undisclosed pre-existing condition. According to the insurer, Mr Ganas had not informed the insurer that he had high blood sugar levels at the time he sought life cover. Disturbingly, the Ombudsman for Long-Term Insurance agreed with Momentum.

For over a year, Mrs Ganas suffered in silence until she made her experience with the insurer public. South Africa heard a great deal about Momentum’s own understanding of “dependable advice, informed assessments and compassionate service”.

The public rightly asked Momentum, what does a violent crime have to do with high blood sugar levels? Their standard response was to brand the late Mr Ganas as a dishonest client. “At the start of a policy, we rely on the quality of information that is provided by the client when completing the medical questionnaire, which determines whether or not further medical information is required, and whether there are any pre-existing conditions which could lead to a decision not to extend cover at all. The strict requirement for full disclosure is a fundamental principle of insurance, and a breach of this duty, however innocent, obliges the insurer to decline the claim and to deal with the policy as if the non-disclosed information had in fact been disclosed.”

In simple terms, this corporate puff suggests that the honesty of Momentum’s clients can only be determined upon death. Until then, Momentum is happy to receive monthly premiums. This is a far cry from the compassionate service they pledge.

Momentum was rightly taken to task. The brand took a battering and clients began to flee. In tweets and interviews, Momentum was utterly tone deaf. The chief executive officer told a radio talk show that Momentum will not pay the claim irrespective of how the client died, saying “No, we will not pay out. We need to stick to our policy and protect the integrity of our company.”  So much for “informed assessment”.

Momentum only changed its tune when the Ganas crisis became a threat to its business: “It is clear from market reaction over the last two days that under certain circumstances, current industry practice creates the impression that the insurers are looking for reasons not to pay a claim. Momentum is in the business of paying claims and we have therefore taken the criticism to heart.” Note the defensive tone and word choice. Unfortunately, this very wording again undermines Momentum’s promise of “dependability” as they seem more interested in market reaction than serving their clients.

The fact is that Momentum spent over a year avoiding paying Mrs Ganas what was owed to her. This is the company that claims to be “in the business of paying clients”.

The pressure from sympathetic South Africans ensured the cries of the Ganas family were heard and resolved, while also teaching corporates that talk starts with the language you choose.

Follow Natasha on Twitter.

Published by Clarity Editorial.

Don’t let poor writing undermine your business

The number of employees who struggle to say what they mean in writing is shockingly high. Clear writing is free of vague statements and maintains the reader’s attention. Mastering this skill will benefit not only your company but your career.

Poor writing can be costly. A 2004 study conducted by the US National Commission on Writing found that it costs about US$3.1 billion annually (about R44 billion at today’s exchange rate) to improve the writing skills of corporate employees. A similar 2005 study estimated that the state government spent an average of US$221 million annually (about R3 billion) to improve its employees’ writing skills. But the potential costs of poor writing in the private and public sectors actually exceed the costs calculated by the study.

A rushed email to a client creates a negative impression. Unclear written product instructions, for example, can result in lawsuits or the loss of customers. An ambiguous job advert can confuse the job seeker. An unprofessionally crafted annual report reflects poorly on your firm. Writing laden with jargon and redundant sentences leaves readers puzzled. And badly constructed written communications can knock your reputation – just ask Samsung.

After some of Samsung’s Galaxy Note7 phones went up in flames, the company drafted an open letter to its customers. Instead of being clear and direct, the opening line seems to be straight out of PR101: “At Samsung, we innovate to deliver breakthrough technologies that enrich people’s lives. An important tenet of our mission is to offer best-in-class safety and quality. Recently, we fell short on this promise.” The note shied away from explaining the effect of the fault, i.e., the fire it caused (“Samsung is fully committed to identifying and addressing the source of the Note7’s battery issue”), but put it down to an “issue”. This non-apology is sure to irritate and leave consumers unsatisfied.

Clear and succinct communication is invaluable. If the cost of poor communication is too high, then get training on how to write more effectively. Learn how to write for impact.

Follow Natasha on Twitter.

Published by Clarity Editorial.

The hefty cost of punctuation mistakes

Poor logic, grammatical errors and spelling mistakes are embarrassing. But that’s not all. A failure to pay attention to punctuation can cost your organisation millions of rands.

Here are some memorable blunders:

NASA Mariner 1 mission

In 1976, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s mission to Venus was aborted 5 minutes after launch. The control unit found a typographical error in a computer equation. An overbar (loosely known as a hyphen) was omitted. This would have sent the spacecraft off course. The error cost the U.S. government US$80 million (about R1 billion at today’s exchange rate).

Oakhurst Dairy vs three delivery drivers

In 2014, three delivery drivers in the U.S. state of Maine sued Oakhurst Dairy for denying to pay them four years’ worth of overtime. State law states that an employee doesn’t qualify to receive overtime pay for the following activities: “The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods”. The defence argued that the absence of an Oxford comma after “shipment” created ambiguity. The delivery drivers referred to “packing” as a single activity, whether for “shipment or distribution”. Delivery drivers handle perishable foods but they don’t pack them. A judge ruled in favour of the drivers, costing Oakhurst Dairy US$10 million (about R129 million).

Radio presenter calling President Zuma a “zombie”

After likening President Jacob Zuma to a zombie, Ravi Govender was fired from Lotus FM. Govender said that Zuma had “massacred” the English language at an African National Congress policy conference. He posted his concerns on Facebook and Zuma’s supporters took action against him. His explanation, “I posted what I posted on Facebook out of anger. I should have known better. He sounded while delivering his speech dead to me, no feelings, no punctuation at all”.

Even in public speaking, the inability to use punctuation is evident. Pointing this out cost Govender his job.

More recently, we were reminded the importance of paying attention to detail when Walter Sisulu University paid R14 million to a student instead of a loan amount of R1 400.  Could a comma have been at issue? No one is talking…

Financial losses will burn a hole in your pocket. But the costs to your reputation and integrity have no limits. Unlike the infamous “Let’s eat Grandma” meme, not all punctuation mistakes are as humorous.

Follow Natasha on Twitter.

Published by Clarity Editorial.

Why truth and care triumph over theft and sloppiness in speechmaking

In our hyper-connected world, remembering the basics is essential to delivering a good speech. Stick to the facts, treat words with care and present your own work. A speech that reeks of sloppiness, falsehood or plagiarism is likely to get noticed in the worst possible way.

On sloppiness and the facts, we have a recent example from South Africa’s Minister in the Presidency for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. During the 2017/18 Presidency budget vote, Minister Jeff Radebe went off script. His department’s report asserted that, “by 2050, it is projected that Africa will have the same population as China and India combined today”.

The Minister failed to include “today” in his speech, which set off alarm bells among observers. But even if Radebe had chosen his words more carefully, the claim that in 2050 Africa will have the same population as China and India combined today looked suspect.  After reviewing a series of United Nations population projections, Africa Check calculated that the combined population of China and India in 2015 was 2.7 billion, against 1.2 billion Africans. In 2050, the United Nation predicts that Africa’s population will reach 2.5 billion, which is lower than the combined total of China and India today. Incidentally, the combined total of the latter two in 2050 is projected at 3.1 billion people.

Plagiarism has been around since there were considerably fewer people on the planet. Way back in the 1st century, the Roman poet Martial found that another poet was using his work without attribution. He decried this outrage with the Latin word plagiarius, meaning kidnapper. Someone had kidnapped his verses.

A more recent case of kidnapping arose at the 2016 national convention of the Republican Party. Melania Trump delivered a speech that borrowed heavily from Michelle Obama’s address at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. In true Trumpian style, the campaign first denied it, and then deflected, with the speechwriter offering up the lame excuse: “No harm was meant.”

Indeed.

Plagiarism is not only an act of theft that can lead to criminal charges. It’s also an act of laziness that can cost the offender dearly in the public eye.

Some politicians have seemingly mastered the “skill” of plagiarism and get away with it. U.S. Senator Rand Paul faces multiple accusations of plagiarism, but has slithered through each episode unscathed.  Former U.S. Senator John Walsh was not so lucky. In 2007, after the U.S. Army War College proved that he plagiarised a portion of his thesis, they revoked his master’s degree.

A final thought: we can’t all be Jeff Radebe, Melania Trump or Rand Paul. In fact, we probably don’t want to be.

A good speech involves producing your own work, building on your own ideas, choosing your words carefully, and checking your facts. Your audience deserves no less.

Follow Natasha on Twitter.

Published by Clarity Editorial.

When ‘fake news’ became the word of the year

Last year, the Collins Dictionary named “fake news” as the word of the year. The phrase famously gained prominence with the election of US President Donald Trump. He used the term as a way to delegitimise unfavourable news coverage, and to create an alternative narrative about himself and his new administration.

Of course, “fake news” is hardly a recent creation. In a January 2017 Financial Times piece headlined “A lesson in fake news from the info-wars of ancient Rome”, Izabella Kaminska described a “fake news” episode during the Roman civil war between two protagonists, Mark Antony and Octavian.

After Julius Caesar was killed on the Ides of March, “what followed was an unprecedented disinformation war in which the combatants deployed poetry and rhetoric to assert the righteousness of the respective campaigns. From the onset, Octavian proved the shrewder propagandist, using short, sharp slogans written upon coins in the style of archaic tweets”, Kaminska says. In the end, Octavian won the war, reinvented himself as Augustus, and became emperor of Rome.

Our modern-day Octavian now occupies the White House as “leader of the free world”. Like Octavian, he is redefining reality according to his world view, using social media, and reaching millions across the world in an instant.

A few weeks ago, South Africa woke up to a Trumpian tweet telling his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers … South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.”

This is of course fake news. There is no land that is being seized from white farmers and the large-scale killing of farmers is pure fiction. The reality is that South Africa is having a spirited discussion about land reform and, if anything, the “large-scale killing” in this country would primarily apply to poor black people, who remain the principal victims of South Africa’s violent crime, as testified by recent crime statistics.

But Trump’s source of this disinformation appears to have been the media itself. He sent the alarming tweet after watching Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson interview with Marian Tupy from the conservative Cato Institute, in which both men were expressing concern about “land seizures” and “farm murders” in South Africa. It is worth noting that this narrative only gained ground in the US as a result of intensive international lobbying by the right-wing AfriForum, who seemed quite pleased that their campaign had reached the ear of the US president.

Which begs the question: How does the media avoid becoming a disseminator of fake news, especially in these times of a perpetual news cycle?

Earlier this year, I attended an intensive 10-day training course at Temple University in Philadelphia, hosted by the Dow Jones News Fund and run by Dr Edward Trayes, who is an institution when it comes to what makes for good journalism.

Dr Trayes taught us that the war on fake news can only be won through sticking to old-style journalism. This means journalists must maintain a critical and questioning stance, should always question what they’re told or what they hear, and should relentlessly check the facts.

In “Trump Versus the Media: How to Cover a Hostile President”, former editor of the Mail & Guardian Nic Dawes advises the US media to shun stenography and ask more pointed questions. “The press should champion a politics of independence, accountability, ethical standards, and legal rights; this is the basis on which it can fight to defend its role in a democratic society and to fulfill its duty to the people,” Dawes writes.

Writers, editors and proofreaders who become conscientious fact checkers will improve their work, and help prevent the publication of incorrect statements that could at the minimum damage credibility, and more seriously damage reputations or invite prosecution.

The rush to publish, to “be the first”, and to ensure a high number of page views adds to the strain on contemporary journalism. South African newsrooms need to work towards higher standards in editing, proofreading and fact-checking to reduce the dissemination of fake news, improve their own credibility, shy away from jeopardising ethics, and demonstrate the value of proper journalism.

 

Follow Natasha on Twitter.

Published on News24.