He knows he might totally abandon writing if he sits down to edit others, as happens to most fine writers. They make them editors and they become over-encumbered by administrative works, leaving them little or no time to write.
There is no reason why we should not write actively into our old ages. One of the best writers I have ever read is Norman Vincent Pearl, author of the bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking, now a classic. A graduate of the Ohio Wesleyan and Boston University, Norman received his journalism training under Grove Patterson, the Hemingers of Ohio’s Morning Republic which was later renamed The Courier. He worked there as a reporter.
Grove Patterson taught Norman Vincent to use the simplest words possible when writing. For example, Patterson taught Vincent to use the word ‘get’ instead of ‘procure’ so that both the university professor and ditch digger would understand. Norman Vincent churned out books after books until his death at the age of 93!
Two other great writers, Arthur Krock and James Reston of the New York Times, even though their writing careers both spanned across the era of the founder and publisher, Adolph Ochs, they managed to keep faith with their writing skills into their old ages, regardless of the different editorial positions they occupied at one time or the other.
Reston’s strict Scotch Presbyterian mother had wanted him to be a preacher. When Reston joined The New York Times, he saw his column as a podium, from where he spread his Calvinist view of life, thrilling the people of the United States with his sound logic and clarity. Reston sometimes infuriated such US presidents as Eisenhower, who once asked, “Who the hell does Reston think he is, telling me how to run the United States of America?”
Writing is like playing musical instruments – no practice, no good performance. I have seen many fine writers overwhelmed by editorial functions and administrative works so much that they almost completely gave up writing, in other words, retired by force from active writing. It is a disease, a disease like the Dutch Disease spoken of by Paul Collier. I call this one Editorial Disease. It is the best way to kill a fine writer.
It could be understandable why some fine writers accept to be editors, knowing fully well it is going to strangle their writing career. One is the material things and resources attached to the office. The other one is man’s innate hunger for power and privileged positions. It might also be out of patriotism to guide the paper to an envisaged direction. But it all depends on the make-up of the writer and his order of priority in life. It also depends on the choices available to him.
If one is so much in love with writing and really can afford those same luxuries attached to the office of an editor, why in the world would one want to kill oneself so, accepting to be the kind of editor that robs one the joy of writing and of denying one’s readers good stories? Some women had forfeited marriage in order to fulfill certain careers they so much cherish. Men forfeit wives and children to become Catholic priests. I think if one loves writing enough, one should be able to resists anything capable of killing that skill in one.
I also think that in journalism, there are good editors, as there are fine writers. A fine writer will certainly make a good editor, but not necessarily the other way round. There are good editors who do not have that ability to create a good piece, but they are good in fine-tuning and making editorial decisions about what other people have written. Save the fine writers, therefore, for the more important job of creating stories, and leave the technicians to do the rest. If nothing is created, there will be nothing to edit.
A diligent fact gatherer who finds it difficult to piece together the facts he has gathered in creative ways, is also important to the media. That is why I laugh at some sub-editors, who believe, because they fine-tune the story of a reporter, that they are more important than the reporter who gathers the facts but finds it difficult to flow in writing. Can a weaverbird weave without raw materials? If nothing is created, what are the sub-editors going to sub-edit? That explains why the reporter still gets the byline no matter how much the sub-editor had panel-beaten the story to make it publishable.
I know the journalist who wrote the story, “The Face of a Lair” for The News magazine. You remember when Salisu Buhari, former speaker of the House of Representative, lied about his age. I heard that the guy who wrote that story is among the best journalists in the country, a diligent fact gatherer, but lacks ways with words.
Nevertheless, a news media is like God’s vineyard. Both he that plants and he that waters are all important labourers in the vineyard. Only God gives the increase!
Source : https://www.vanguardngr.com
No comments:
Post a Comment