Writing and speaking precisely help you think precisely

Bo Sacks distributed a fun article titled “Copy editors know best: A journalist’s guide to avoiding common language missteps.”

It reminded me of my days as an editor.

I had the great good fortune of having two intelligent parents who spoke well and cared about grammar and such, but when I became an editor I realized how poorly I understood the rules. I had an instinctive sense for what “sounded right,” but I couldn’t tell you why.

Working as an editor – with no formal training – I kept Strunk and White, the AP Style Guide, and a dictionary at my fingertips at all times. I studied books on “confusables” so I’d know affect vs. effect and that sort of thing.

The most important skill an editor needs is to know when he should look something up.

Some of that language geekiness is still with me. To this day I yell at the TV when somebody says further when they mean farther, which when they mean that, or less when they mean fewer. It annoys me when people put an “and” in the middle of a number.

A lot of people don’t know that last one, so this is what I mean. 206,000 is “two hundred six thousand.” “Two hundred and six thousand” is 6,200.

And no, I don’t correct people at cocktail parties.

The point of speaking correctly is that it forces you to think precisely, which is a skill we seem to be losing. People are often unable to make careful distinctions.

Oh, I promised to explain that vs. which.

That introduces a clause that’s essential to the meaning of a sentence. Which introduces a clause that is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Imagine I have two red cars. One is parked in the driveway and one is parked on the street. I ask my friend, “would you please get my toolbox out of my red car that’s parked in the driveway.” The phrase “that’s parked in the driveway” is essential to the meaning of the sentence because that’s the car that has my toolbox.

Now imagine my two cars are a Toyota and a Honda. If I were to say, “My Honda, which is parked on the street, is low on gasoline.” In this case “which is parked on the street” is not essential to the meaning of the sentence because I only have one Honda.

Deciding whether to use that or which forces you to think logically. I think that’s a good thing.

Links

Copy editors know best: A journalist’s guide to avoiding common language missteps

https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/copy-editors-know-best-a-journalists-guide-to-avoiding-common-language-missteps,251857

Before you erect that paywall, here are some things to consider.

When advertising revenue declines, as it has been, publishers start to think about paywalls, as they have been.

I was talking with a client about this the other day and tried to come up with a list of things to consider when developing a paywall strategy. Here’s a quick summary.

Issues

What is your strategic goal with your content?

• Reach

• Revenue

• Leads

• Data

Some of those fit with a paywall and some don’t.

Is your content homogenous – for example, is it all articles – or do you have different types of content? And what about your audience? Are there distinct segments with different characteristics?

In either of those cases, you might need a different strategy by type of content or by audience segment. For example, short-form articles might remain free, but longer analysis could be gated, or college students get your content for free, while professionals have to pay.

When you present a restriction on access, which I’ll talk about in a minute, are prospects paying for present value or for the promise of future value?

Is content the main thing you sell, or is it a draw for something else? Does that differ by type of content?

Restrictions on access cause friction. Is your audience likely to put up with that?

Restrictions on access can affect SEO. Is that a problem? (Also, will SEO even be an issue a year from now?)

What do your competitors do?

Restrictions on access can also be a means of hiding your content from large language models.

Types of restriction on access to content

There are lots of different kinds of paywalls.

• Free registration (how much do you need to collect?)

• Subscription (what’s the term? Monthly, annual?)

• Membership (that includes more than just a subscription)

• Pay per view / micropayments

• Patronage

• Institutional access

• Geo-restricted (you have to live in this city to see this content)

• Content is only available in an app

• Content is only available as a download

You can also mix and match between these. It’s easy to go down a rabbit hole with this concept.

When does metering work?

Content characteristics

• Specialized and unique. Think The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.

• Perceived scarcity or urgency.

• Exclusive and in-depth.

• Content that retains its value over time.

Audience characteristics

• Loyal and engaged Professional

• Affluent

Brand characteristics

• Established and trusted

• Clear sense of value

While it’s good to have an instinctive reaction against censorship, some books should be banned for some people in some circumstances

The phrase “book banning” conjures up images of Puritans, McCarthyism, and even Nazis. A series of Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1950s overturned efforts to censor content and affirmed the rights of adults to read what they want – with some minor exceptions. They also affirmed the rights of states to protect children from certain material.

That seems to have been a strong consensus ever since. Until now.

The consensus has been broken in at least two ways.

First, efforts to restrict content available to children have been falsely labeled as “book bans.” The argument over banning books has always made a distinction between content for children and content for adults. To gloss over that distinction is to misrepresent the issue. It is perfectly appropriate to restrict what children have access to.

Second, there’s growing support for the idea that the government can decide what is mis-, dis-, or mal-information, and pressure social media companies to censor it. I find the concept horrifying and straight out of a totalitarian playbook. Do people really want to give the government the right to determine what can and can’t be said?

It makes me shudder.

I gave this podcast the provocative title, “Yes, we should ban books.” What do I mean by that?

First, it is appropriate for parents and communities to regulate what content is available to children. As I noted above, that shouldn’t be called a “book ban,” so … yes, I’m having that both ways so I can say something provocative.

Second, some content should be illegal even for adults. Child pornography comes to mind. Something like “How to make a nuclear bomb in your basement” … I’m not sure about that. Maybe. But there are some limits.

The conclusion is that while our free speech culture – which I support wholeheartedly – might lead us to have an instinctive negative reaction to the concept of “book bans,” we have to look a little closer. There are some situations where books should be banned.