Clips (continued)

I asked George Beetham, Jr., to respond to Sarah's post. Here is his reply.

Pat's comments offer a couple of strategies. But I want to address the nature of clip files and, by extension, resumes.

What you really seek to do with both resumes and clip files is to present to prospective employers a digest of why they should hire you.

You need to understand that employers will receive many resumes from many people. What you need to do to attract that employer's attention is stand out from all the rest.

If I am looking over resumes, trying to decide who will be invited in for an interview, I look for a resume and clip file that demonstrate the applicant's interest in and fitness for my publication's mission and philosophy.

I look, therefore, for resumes and clip files that demonstrate a candidate's interest in and commitment to community news reporting.

So clips from non-related publishing ventures are not going to trump clips from newspapers, everything else being equal.

For me, journalism was a second career after the first of writing journalistically styled reports for a government agency. So I not only didn't have a clip file, my work being locked away, but nothing to indicate that I would succeed in journalism.

I wrote freelance stories for little or no monetary remuneration to build a file. I talked to the editor of a local weekly paper to find out what he needed in the way of stories, and what he needed was features. I set out to write them with a vengeance and soon had a file that got me through the door.

As an aside, the editor who eventually hired me said he put little stock in clip files because he thought they represented the work of the copy desk rather than the writer. But other editors value clip files because they do demonstrate not just writing ability, but a reporter's grasp of issues.

It's correct to assume a clip file consisting of poorly edited stories is not going to get the job done. But it's also essential to present a clip file that is germane to the position for which you are applying.

So the course of action I would recommend is to contact the editor of a small, community newspaper and seek out ways to write stories the paper can use, even if it means doing that for free (a price that is always right in an age of limited budgets).

A further benefit for this strategy: I have hired people who have been freelancers or stringers who demonstrated their fitness for journalism in this way.

Another approach might be to seek out an internship, even if it is unpaid (assuming you do not have an overwhelming need to put food on the table and pay the rent). People have interned while holding down night jobs, by the way. I have hired former interns, again for their demonstrated ability.

Editors seek out people who will become good journalists. They want people who are motivated and outgoing. Journalists interact with people from government officials down to the common man/woman. Anybody who demonstrates an outgoing, but not dominating, personality and journalistic credentials makes the hiring process easier. That's your goal, to make that process a slam-dunk.

Good luck.

Clips

George Beetham advices budding journalists to build a clip file for job applications. I know having a large number of clips from which to choose and show future employers is important; but, as Claire and I touched on last class, what if your published stories have been mangled by the editors? The mistakes the Ka Leo editors put in stories are, frankly, embarrassing. My friends and I agree that we don't want to send in our stories because when they are published with stupid errors, we end up looking like the fools. But sometimes a school publication is the only avenue for student journalists to get published. In these situations, is it better to have many published, poor quality clips or unpublished, better quality stories?

Getting a job in journalism

I asked George Beetham, Jr., editor of The Review, to tell me what he looks for in applicants and how he evaluates resumes and letters of recommendation. Here is his response.

Starting with the resume, I look for candidates who have some evidence of interest in journalism, from course work to experience, perhaps on school publications. We get tons of resumes when we post openings. These run the entire gamut, including folks who have no remote idea what being a journalist is all about (experience as a circus clown who wrote his/her memoirs does not qualify one as a journalist).

That makes it harder for someone pursuing journalism as a second career, as I did many moons ago. I went out and sold freelance stories for peanut shells to build a clip file, and that did the trick. But that shows evidence that a candidate is serious and not just shopping around to see what might fit.

Resumes should clearly and prominently stress any related experience that would qualify the person. Don't bury this in the last paragraph, which might not get read if the first part is vague or general.

The interview is important. I look for alertness, attentiveness, signs of interest in our publication and the geographical areas we cover, and responsiveness. If people's attention wanders in the interview, they're not going to do a good job interviewing sources. They're apt to miss key phrases, or entire blocks of what the source is telling them.

I prefer that a candidate listen attentively while I discuss the job and our mission and then offer reasons why he or she will fit into the job. At this point, I expect the candidate to dazzle me and clearly indicate qualifications, using examples of his or her experience as it relates to our mission.

I like good follow-up questions because they mark a good journalist. I also like to hear some evidence that the candidate can marshall facts into a coherent whole. If people can't do that, they're not going to make it.

Suggestions for candidates:

First, understand clearly what journalists do and how they do it. Watch televised press conferences and take notes. Use those notes to outline the topics covered in the press conference and compare those notes to printed or televised reports on the press conference. It may seem like a silly exercise, but you will learn from it. You will get many assignments on the job that will seem equally silly, but you will be expected to complete them nevertheless.

Second, understand the publication to which you are applying, its coverage area, the issues with which it deals, and get a good appreciation for what it does. If you go into an interview and start telling an editor that his or her paper needs more movie or music reviews, you're not going to get a job as a general assignment (hard news) reporter. Smaller pubs do not review movies or concerts. They cover politics, government, governmental services, civic issues, social issues, police, fire, and emergency services issues. Somebody whose heart is set on being a music critic is likely to butt heads with the editor of a small pub.

Third, understand that once you are hired and on the job, you will still have to undergo a learning curve, from learning computer programs you may or may not have used to learning the ropes at the paper. This is not an easy process. It can be very uncomfortable, and perhaps unsettling. Keep in mind that only the strong survive, and be strong. It is helpful to be a quick learner, and it will become apparent early on whether you are a quick study or not.

Last but not least, always seek feedback from editors and colleagues once on the job. Learn to differentiate "I like your stories" from "What I like about your stories is xxxxx." Search out specifics and not glittering generalities. Glittering generalities are momentarily good for the ego, but of no help at all in learning.

Finally, it needs to be understood that journalism is a career field in constant transition, both in people and technology. Ability to master, not just learn, technology is essential. We are about to undergo a transition in our web sites that will make new ways of reporting possible. It will be up to us to tailor what we put on the site and how we put it in our individual papers. I've been in this business for 26 years, not counting 14 years working for the federal government in a related field. I am about to face yet another learning curve. It never stops. Technological changes are not easy, but they beat chiseling letters into a rock tablet, or sorting through lead type to compose a single line of letters and words.

More idiotic…

Gary Mawyer sent me the link for this article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft: More idiotic than erotic. It's a wonderful piece—followed, I might add, by some provocative comments. One of these reads as follows:

What is remarkable here is the evident failure of Geoffrey Wheatcroft's publisher, Politico's Publishing, to employ a copy editor capable of picking up obvious errors. Traditionally, all mainstream publishers submit manuscripts to a copy-editorial process before the proofreading stage is reached, the copy editor usually being someone with knowledge of the subject area. It's true that small publishers, which Politico's presumably is, are often challenged in this area, but then Politico's is an imprint of Methuen, which obviously has the resources to employ competent editors. So what is to blame for this surprising, and extremely depressing, blunder? Cost cutting? I think we should be told ...

Test 3

(from Moon-Yun)

For some parts of the test, I felt like the copyeditor would have looked up the answers on a stylebook and not necessarily have the answer in his/her head, such as with the punctuation question. Would that be true?

Tragic grammar

Sometimes, I think, copyediting something could take away the beauty that is found in flaws. Here, an example, is Virginia Woolf's suicide letter. Imagine if someone had copyedit it! Now, that would be tragic.

"I feel certain that I am going mad again. I feel we can't go through another of those terrible times. And I shan't recover this time. I begin to hear voices, and I can't concentrate. So I am doing what seems the best thing to do. You have given me the greatest possible happiness. You have been in every way all that anyone could be. I don't think two people could have been happier till this terrible disease came. I can't fight any longer. I know that I am spoiling your life, that without me you could work. And you will I know. You see I can't even write this properly. I can't read. What I want to say is I owe all the happiness of my life to you. You have been entirely patient with me and incredibly good. I want to say that — everybody knows it. If anybody could have saved me it would have been you. Everything has gone from me but the certainty of your goodness. I can't go on spoiling your life any longer."

"Believe you me"

Every time I hear this phrase, I'm left a little puzzled. I think I know what they are trying to emphasize, but is this correct? And if it is acceptable, would a phrase like that be left alone or would copyeditors replace it with a more commonly used phrase?