Updates On Old Ideas Archives
Posted: July 21, 2010
Back in 2003, I made the following statement during a presentation at the Agricultural Media Summit held in Cleveland, Ohio.
"Eventually one or two existing magazines may well emerge and dominate the nation's agricultural press. Realizing the true value of the pool of underused writer talent, they will likely seek those writers who can help them acheive unprecedented standards of journalistic excellence, content and presentation."
Much has happened during the seven years between then and now. The internet has grown considerably and become far more innovative in its ability to reach new and existing users.
Most prominent in that development has been the emergence of social networking sites. That's greatly expanded the internet from being primarily a commercial entity into a communication medium tying people of like interests together tighter than at any time in history.
No longer can the power and reach of electronic media be ignored. And anyone can be justified in easily becoming enamored by this exciting way of communicating through sight and sound.
At the same time, however, neither can the traditional qualities of print media be ignored. Indeed, the challenge facing electronic media has never been how to replace print media but rather how both can work toward maximum mutual benefit. There is growing proof they not only can but that they will.
Often forgotten is that regardless of the medium used, content is what rules. Peel away all the methodology and the task is still the same as it has always been -- to inform, clarify, excite, persuade and entertain.
Add to that the growing trend toward story telling and the time has never been better for print to serve the public, no matter how that audience is broken down by profession, age or any other socio-economic or demographic criteria.
Excellence of content can only occur when good writers are allowed to emerge and flourish. This means seasoned and creative writers free to fully explore and pursue and given time to properly think and write within the parameters of purpose and audience.
Idealistic thinking for the ag press? Perhaps not. Even now, some general mass media magazines are already on that track.
After all, farmers, ranchers and everyone in agribusiness respond to much of what appeals to everyone else. At the same time, however, they must have available all the information required to run a successful enterprise.
Whoever is best able to smoothly and effectively combine those two important facets of reader satisfaction will succeed mightly -- and do it by combining and putting to work the best qualities of both electronic and print.
On that basis, I still stand by what I said in Cleveland. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what another seven years brings.
Posted: May 28, 2010
Back in 1997, a mere 13 years ago, I wrote the following in the AAEA ByLine:
"I learned long ago that if everyone else fails to notice how well you have done, you can and must compliment yourself. By acknowledging the positive benefits of your actions, you elevate your level of professionalism and gain strength to move forward."
I consider that point to still be valid. Yet, doing it has become more difficult to accomplish.
Over the last few years, the workplace has become an even harsher environment. There is more pressure to become more efficient, to save money and to work harder and longer. Professional excellence, once the gold standard for determining employee worth, is more often being eased or shoved aside in favor of other factors deemed more important. No profession or business is immune, not even ag journalism.
Sad to say, but you must now do even better in evaluating your work and rate of progress. Even worse, this comes at a time when there is increasing uncertainty not only locally but nationally and internationally.
Accurately viewing what lies ahead is more difficult than ever. Predictions about your personal life also are increasingly missing the mark. That underscores the importance of having even greater flexibility to handle whatever the future might hold.
More to the point, you must be able to honestly determine the quality of what you are doing. But that evaluation must extend outside the immediate environment. What you are writing to satisfy corporate demands may not be good enough when you either choose or are forced to move.
Also, if you are unable to use your expertise or professionalism where you are, you must keep those abilities intact and updated so they are available on demand. Granted, being too good for the job you're doing isn't a good fit. But circumstances, particularly now in a tight job market, often dictate you stay where you are and bide your time until a new challenge shows itself. You must find ways to continue to grow even if that ability isn’t or can’t be properly expressed where you are.
To summarize, never blindly assume the lack of reaction by others to what you are doing is a true indicator of the quality of your performance. Your honest and candid view of the quality of your work must also go into the mix.
Always keep improving. Always keep thinking about what may be ahead. Whether a change in job or even career, best you be prepared.
Your ultimate allegiance is the one you make to yourself.
Posted: April 30, 2010
It was 1994, the year before the American Agricultural Editors’ Association (AAEA) celebrated its 75th Anniversary.
The planning leading to that special event prompted me to write a column entitled “The Essence Of Association.” In it, I attempted to define an association and to identify what every member must do to make any association succeed and flourish.
As part of my summary at the end, I wrote:
“It’s up to us to take full advantage of every opportunity to strengthen the AAEA and to fully vest it with the joy of gathering together and the spirit of learning and sharing. No matter what forces are beyond our control, that is our responsibility."
That was only 15 years ago. Yet, those words now sound out of date, almost quaint. The world in which we now find ourselves has become a harsher place. The future is much less certain and far more unpredictable. Competition among both people and organizations has become more aggressive.
Our society has taken on a brittleness much of which has originated from an attitude of “it’s all about me.” As a result, people are inclined to believe they can do without the traditional links that worked so well for so many years. One major consequence is that many if not most organizations are finding it more difficult to recruit and keep members.
In short, the meaning behind the words “the joy of gathering together and the spirit of learning and sharing” has taken a major hit. Although the present motives for getting together are in keeping with the times, they are quite different from those of only a few years ago.
Whether that is a loss or a gain depends on your perspective. Frankly, I’m not sure there is a correct answer.
Still, I urge you to attend the Ag Media Summit, a major part of which is the AAEA. It will be held in late July in St. Paul, Minnesota.
While there, I encourage you to do your best to enjoy your time with others in the ag journalism community. Relish the opportunity to be together in fellowship.
In my mind, that’s at least as important as any of the other reasons for attending.
Posted: February 15, 2010
Back in 2003, I gave a presentation at the Ag Media Summit consisting of a mix of experiences, anecdotes, ideas and even some predictions as to what I believed the future held for us.
At the end of the presentation, I gave everyone a handout. Included were seven points under the title of "Effective Ways To Build Your Future As A Writer." The first one read:
"Begin now to seek out and associate only with publishers who have vision and editors who impose discipline by insisting on increasingly higher standards of editorial excellence."
If that was an important point seven years ago, it's even more critical now. That's because the internet has given everyone not only the opportunity to write but also the forum with which reach almost every part of the world.
That's an exciting reality. But it also is a frightening one for journalists and photographers everywhere who have long enjoyed special privileges in the gathering and dispensing of information.
They, and that also means us, no longer have an exclusive on information sources, creativity and markets. Indeed, about the only difference is that we have been doing it much longer, a distinction nobody gives one whit about.
I need not look far for a classic example, a friend who was a professional carpet estimator. After retiring, he and his wife bought a boat and began cruising. Although he had never written anything before, he began posting his experiences online.
His descriptions of things seen and experienced were charged with such emotion you imagined you were there with him. So compellingly did he weave together facts, opinions and insights that readers regretted reaching the end of his musings.
It was magic. And because he is still cruising, it continues.
Yet, without the internet, no one would know. For that matter, it's probably safe to say if that forum hadn't been available, he might not have ever written anything.
Is he a threat to you? Not directly and certainly not in this particular situation. But multiply him by hundreds, thousands even millions and you quickly understand the power the masses now have at their fingertips.
This doesn't mean the immediate end to editors and publishers. It does, however, endanger those who lack the vision, the willingness to take risk and the ability to surround themselves with the best possible people to help them succeed.
Those are the ones with whom you should establish professional ties. They will be the most successful in finding and using innovative ways to combine the power of the internet with existing traditional forms of publication and communication.
Posted: December 28, 2009
It was 1996. E-mail was in its infancy. I hadn’t been one of the first users. But by then I already had several months of experience with the new medium.
In the AAEA ByLine, I wrote about the connection between our writing for publication and writing e-mail.
To quote: “It has occurred to me that e-mail offers an important spin-off potential to those of us who are increasingly using it. Our writing could become more personal, more informal, less structured and tilted more in the direction of a dialog rather than a monolog. . . . . . Our uninhibited use of email might in a backhanded way, enhance the quality of our writing.”
Frankly, my excitement and pragmatism caused me to peg this all wrong.
At first, e-mail was an exciting way to communicate. Just imagine writing a message and having it delivered almost instantly, ready for the receiver to read when most convenient.
If it was business, we anxiously waited for the response so we could get on with things. If it was pleasure, we were always excited to get an answer from the friend or relative on the other end.
E-mail promised to deliver what neither a phone call nor regular mail could do nearly as quickly or completely.
But the ugly side soon came into view. It wasn’t as private as we had originally thought. We painfully discovered e-mail was far from the best way to communicate feelings, opinions or anything of a thoughtful or argumentative nature. E-mail was okay for short messages but quickly came to be disliked, even hated by those preferring to scan rather than read.
If all of that weren’t bad enough, e-mail became the courier for nasty and destructive viruses. Junk mail and unwanted mail began to clog electronic mailboxes. The problems became so severe that corporate America was forced to install filters, many of which couldn’t and still can’t tell good e-mail from bad.
E-mail is still an important part of the media mix. But the excitement it originally caused is long gone. To put it simply, its former impressive advantages are now balanced by its limitations and limited acceptance.
For sure, it’s a long way from being what I was originally led to believe it would become.
Posted: November 27, 2009
First, let me tell you what I once wrote that was published in the AAEA ByLine:
“We are becoming a nation of structure populated by the structured. We are urged to be socially conscious, legally aware, financially astute, professionally cautious, ethically sensitive and politically correct. Communication technology grips us in a tightening knot of uncomfortable togetherness.”
Now, would you care to guess when I wrote that? Try May, 1994, almost 16 years ago.
If my perception then was correct in describing what we were becoming, then there’s plenty of evidence to suggest the train is still running down the track.
At no time during my professional life have I seen so much structure. In every respect, it has invaded our personal as well as public lives. There’s hardly an activity of any kind that hasn’t been directly or indirectly affected by the trend of more control.
That’s a particularly worrisome problem for us as journalists.
It means that more information is screened before we receive it. That has such a sanitizing effect that we must dig ever deeper to uncover what really is happening or has already happened.
Openness has been replaced by restriction and suspicion. Long gone are the days when as a reporter, we could freely enter a company, a university or organization and readily gain access to information. Sure, that still happens. But the security is far tighter.
For any number of reasons, some words have literally been outlawed. For example, we don’t see in writing where anyone was caught telling a lie. Instead, we read they “misspoke.” Other words have purposely been softened so as to not to offend the sensitive.
Friendships and professional ties that once offered a bit of relief from the daily grind have been curtailed because of increasingly real or imagined competition among corporate entities.
The quest for higher profits has tightly crimped the amount of time required for creativity and innovation. One person is now doing the work of several. In such situations, something must give. Invariably, it hits the rank and file employee the hardest.
The credibility of journalism as a profession is suffering because of breeches in ethics, the result of other forces exerting pressure. What was once considered a crime is more often viewed as merely a happening for which an apology is adequate.
I could go on but you get the picture.
The future is uncertain. About all we can do is slow down the train. And even that assumption is a stretch.
Posted: September 28, 2009
It was September, 1992. Within a few weeks the American Agricultural Editors’ Association (AAEA) would be holding its annual meeting in Indianapolis. Included would be a report by the Long-Range Planning Committee, an attempt to map out the association’s course in an uncertain sea.
In my column, I recognized both the problems and the opportunities. And I had this to say about the future:
“The equation is simple: Just as we can’t afford blind change, neither can we afford blind resistance. The answer is for us to develop a plan that will accurately and completely reflect needs and concerns of the entire membership. Although the plan may not be endorsed by every member, it must be universally supported to succeed.”
Now, here we are 17 years later. Much has happened since then, far too much to even detail. But this much we do know. Organizations of all descriptions are having a much tougher time surviving and succeeding. More specifically, new technology and changes in agriculture and the economy caused the AAEA ranks to thin to the point of causing some serious uneasiness.
The worst, however, appears to be over. Membership numbers are on a slow rise and the financials are solid.
Most satisfying is that along the way the AAEA has taken initiatives pretty much in keeping with the comments I made years ago. That is, it has taken cautious approaches before making large changes. Also, and far more important, the goal of those changes have been to “accurately and completely reflect needs and concerns of the entire membership.”
Some would be correct in saying it all took too long. And yes, more remains to be done. Yet, far better to arrive late than to not arrive at all.
Next year, the AAEA will celebrate its 90th year of existence. All other considerations aside, that’s a genuine reason to be proud.
Posted: August 25, 2009
Fifteen years ago, I lamented the glaring lack of historical references in so many ag stories. I was airing not only my opinions but also those of Charlie Scruggs, a distinguished ag journalist.
Charlie and I had just finished judging a writing contest concerning soil conservation. We were commenting to each other the fact that none of the writers had made any effort to include any historical facts. We considered that a serious error.
I wrote: “Without knowing what’s happened before, we, as writers, can’t place present events and future needs in proper perspective. And if we don’t do that, our readers can’t see themselves as involved in a much larger effort extending over a long span of time.”
That’s still true. In fact, it’s even truer now than in 1994 because of the speed with which new ideas, technology and practices are being introduced.
You need not look farther than in our own profession. Methods we were using to gather and process information 15 years ago are very different from what we are using now. Yet, that era seems so far away.
That’s because our perceptio n of how much time has passed doesn’t match the reality of there being 365 days in the year. So we tend to view time not by how much actual time has passed but rather by how many changes have occurred.
When we research a subject and keep both number of changes and amount of time in proper perspective, we can far more accurately portray the past to write more interestingly about the present.
In doing so, we pass on the same benefit to the reader who, like us, also suffers from perception clashing with reality.
Yet, many if not most ag journalists ignore their responsibility to delve into history because “it’s so yesterday.”
Yes it is and that’s exactly the point.
If you want your journalistic efforts to be fully effective, you must take readers back in time before leading them into the present and speculating the future.
That takes time, a commodity in the work place that’s becoming increasingly scarce. But delving into history is becoming a more vital component of all factual writing. Indeed, it’s necessary if what you reveal to readers and viewers is to be effective.
Charlie explained that best when he said to me, “Fred, I just don’t understand why farm writers don’t tap the rich resource of books about the history of American agriculture. They would discover that what has already happened has a direct bearing on our present problems and challenges.”
Posted: July 26, 2009
Seventeen years ago I wrote a fictitious account of a future ag journalist getting a story. It was fun to do because I could let my imagination go in any direction. For example, I invented two devices, the Voice Actuated Monitoring Interception Transmitter (VAMIT) and the Basic Logistical Optical Beamcaster (BLOB).
All the ag journalist in the field had to do was turn on the VAMIT, talk the story and it would be relayed by satellite to the office and instantly converted to text. To get photographs, the BLOB was aimed at the subject, turned on and the resulting video would be transferred to the office for editing and immediate use as video or stills.
Again, I remind you that was in 1992. Yes, we were using computers although the "portable" ones often weighed upward of 20 pounds. But email was still in its infancy and a phone was just that, a phone. At times, I find it difficult to believe technology has moved this fast to get us where we are today.
True, VAMIT and BLOB, those two figments of my imagination, don't exist as such. But my descriptions of their capabilities almost match what now exists in the form of wireless communication. Texting is a close match to VAMIT and we can transfer images in somewhat the same fashion as my imagined BLOB.
In fact, information transfer has become so sophisticated I would be hardpressed to write such an article now and predict the future with comparable accuracy.
I do know I sometimes wish we were still doing things the old "hard" way. Back then we were more deliberate in our actions, perhaps even more careful. Although we had to watch our time, we weren't experiencing today's push and rush to get things done. It's comforting, however, to realize many others have said the same thing down through the ages.
Indeed, no one could have dreamed man would eventually find his thumbs so valuable.
Posted: June 26, 2009
On October 29, 1992, AAEA members were treated to an address by Marshall Loeb. At the time, Loeb, a man of impressive credentials, was Managing Editor of Fortune Magazine.
Loeb made several key points. One of them was:
"Try to say 'yes' to ideas and allow as much freedom as possible, particularly with the creative person -- the golden asset in your organization."
Indeed, creative people are "the golden asset." From them come new ideas, concepts and ways for achieving even greater results. Creative people think in a wide realm with neither boundaries nor limitations. Trace any highly successful communication project to its roots and you will find one or more people who envisioned what others couldn't and who managed to do what others didn't.
Yet, of all the assaults on ag journalism in recent years, perhaps none has been as serious as the one against creativity. Although a person may not be penalized for lacking creativity, neither is the creative person encouraged to think more widely.
Despite Loeb's timeless urging, far too many employers either can't or won't follow through.
The only reason for any optimism lies in the fact that our society is moving toward evaluating products and services in terms of value received rather than merely what they cost.
In ag journalism, that translates to writing better copy instead of simply writing more of it. It also means pursuing original ideas rather than merely reshaping old ones. But those changes can be made only if journalists are encouraged to freely use their creativity.
Posted May 20, 2009
Ten years ago, I wrote seven ideas for improving your writing. Here are the first and last sentences I wrote under idea number six:
"For greater warmth and believability, write as if you are telling someone rather than writing to them. . . . . . . . .In other words, write as if you were carrying on a one sided conversation."
That still needs to be said.
Lately, however, there has been a noticeable trend toward copy that's more engaging, that's more than merely conversational. It has greater warmth and often embraces the reader so well that it's as if the author is sitting right there in the same room.
This trend is arising from the rising popularity of story telling as an effective means of communication. That's because of the increasing resistance of readers to accept any writing smacking of urgency, preaching and do's and don'ts. People want to be considered and treated as equals who are eager to learn, rather than ignorant subordinates.
Much more information can be conveyed through stories rather than through straight text that lectures. After all, stories reveal how real people have reacted under real circumstances. Even if they reacted wrongly, readers regard what happened as a lesson to be learned or a value to be gained. Stories create a sense of reality to subjects that ordinarily would make for dull reading even when treated with superb writing.
It's safe to predict the story telling trend will continue.
Looking back at what I had to say about this ten years ago, I'm sure I was right. Equally clear is that because I never mentioned story telling, I simply didn't take it far enough.
If I were writing on that subject today, I most definitely would.
Posted: April 2, 2009
Almost 16 years ago, I wrote a column in which I described several things all of us could do to feel better. Here’s the full text of one of them:
“Drive out into the country on a nice afternoon, find a hill and sit down. Let everything that’s clawing at you drain away until you feel you are once again in control. Of course, you always have been. But we often get blindsided so many times that the value we place on ourselves becomes greatly distorted and eventually sinks to low ebb. Stay until the landscape becomes quiet and the stars come out. Then go home, go to bed and wake up to a new day.”
If that sounded impractical then, it will sound even more so now. But the potential benefit of such self-therapy hasn’t changed.
Since then, we have become immersed in new urgencies and greater demands. Cell phones and laptop computers have enslaved us. Our day-to-day existence whether in the office or on the road, has become a challenge in terms of time and people management and logistics. Our resources are stretched thinner than ever before. All of these conditions have placed greater strain on our minds, bodies and attitudes.
In an attempt to establish a counterbalance, each of us must insist on time for clearing the mind.
From a practical point of view, you might be able to find the ideal place such as I suggested years ago. Once you are away from town, however, you can improvise. Just being along a stream, a river or along a lakeshore can substitute for a hilltop.
The idea is for you to simply get away from it all and to do that by yourself. It means going to a place to think inwardly about your strengths and abilities and outwardly about your relationship with the rest of the physical world.
There’s something magical, too, about witnessing the closing of a day, the transition nature makes between late afternoon and evening, the slowing of the wind, the birds stopping their singing as they prepare for a quiet night.
Most of us have witnessed such happenings many times and have probably found ourselves breathing more deeply and experiencing, if only briefly, an inner peace. We need to keep on doing it.
Posted: March 6, 2009
Some things I have written over the years have been just plain fun.
Each time I sat down to write, I found myself not caring about length, structure or anything else smacking of “proper” journalistic methodology. Nor did I attempt to compress my thoughts into the same sized cube and push it into a hole of the exact same size. I just let my mind go where it wanted to go.
For example, 15 years ago I wrote a column entitled “Thinking on the Wild Side.” It consisted of 19 weird, funny and ridiculous scenarios.
One was this gem: “Catfish farmers in Mississippi are rapidly adopting a new management technique, that of using trained dolphins to round up the fish at harvest time.”
Another was: “An Illinois farmer is the first in the Nation to achieve a 200 bushel per acre corn yield from a field on top of a Chicago landfill. Tests will soon be made to determine if the presence of 68 percent plastic and 12 percent beer cans in the lower root zone was a factor.”
The column may have been entertaining, but that wasn’t its real purpose.
What I was attempting to convey was the thought that agriculture, as life, need not and should not be serious all the time. In fact, it had better not be if we intend to march on through the years without dying of stress or related ailments.
Yet, about everything I see in the ag press is moving in the opposite direction. It’s all about dollars and cents, management, productivity, legal matters, the environment, energy, politics and regulations. All of it is serious and stern, the voice of authority, warnings, misgivings and apprehension.
Even ag journalists who are free thinkers dare not stray from the editorial formula and go in another direction. They can’t even hint that anything out there is something less than serious.
That’s the way it was back in 1994.
I wish I could say that since then, we have eased off a bit, that we have lightened up, that we are now adding some fanciful thinking to flavor all the hard news and unrelenting facts.
But I can’t. In fact, it’s worse now.
How unfortunate.
Posted: February 2, 2009
Seventeen years ago, I echoed what nationally syndicated columnist Mona Charen had just written regarding the moral crisis in America. I acknowledged that no community, no matter how rural or remote, was escaping crime, violence, drugs and all other moral shortcuts.
Then I went on to write: "Rural America's roots have always been firmly anchored in God, country and motherhood to form a bastion of good sense and fair play. . . . . . . You might not agree that identifyiung and promoting the goodness in America is an appropriate task for the farm press. . . . . . But if we as writers, editors, perceivers and persuaders can find a way to neutralize or sidestep that, we will be presented with a rewarding opportunity to come to the aid of the Republic."
Much has happened since then, especially within the last few months during which we have seen the financial meltdown of companies, institutions and individuals. Clearly, we have begun to suffer a serious hangover after years of binging on greed, excess and general moral laxity.
With that chilling dose of reality has also come an increasing awareness that self examination is in order not only in terms of how we handle our finances but also how we handle ourselves. The value of the family as a unit of strength and coherence has come into sharp focus. Also, the difference between right and wrong needs to be redefined.
None of this should sound strange to those of us born and raised in rural America, even those who most recently have come from that environment. Farms and ranches have always served as effective incubators for such qualities as wisdom, vision, perseverance, patience and faith in nature and her wondrous ways.
Sure, those qualities have been under assualt everywhere and we have winced while witnessing happenings in RFD unthinkable only a few years ago. Despite that trend, much of the traditional goodness identified with rural America still exists.
That said, I believe we should ask the question of whether rural America should now serve as a launching point for helping our nation to reinstate long lost or forgotten values. If we agree it should, then the proper place for that to begin is on every farm and ranch and agribusiness.
So what would serve as the best rallying point? The ag press. It penetrates deeply into those sectors. Just as it has served as the primary source for production information, it could be equally effective and persuasive in serving as a catalyst in rebalancing our Nation's ethical behavior. The number of ways that could be accomplished is unlimited. A logical beginning would be a series of editorials, feature length articles, a website dedicated to the effort or a keynote speech.
For starters, why don't you take the responsibility of making this point during the next appropriate meeting.
Posted: January 2, 2009
Back in 1984, I gave a presentation to the Agricultural Communications Section of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists in New Orleans. The title was "Some Things Don't Change -- The Case For Good Copy." Here's an excerpt from the printed proceedings:
"We continue to degrade our language in many ways. Despite the need for brevity, we insist on using longer words when short ones would be much more effective. Redundancy is everywhere. We use catch phrases and buzz words without hesitation. Too often we place a higher value on exaggeration, short cuts, hype and glitz than we do on the pursuit of accuracy."
I sincerely wish I could say that now, 25 years later, the situation has improved. It hasn't. Instead, it has become significantly worse. As we become covered with increasing layers of communication, we should be even more conscious of the need for clear and concise language. Even more strange is the even greater disconnect between what we write and what we speak
Consider this. The word "common" is rapidly becoming extinct. Replacing it is "ubiquitous" which means something that is "present everywhere." But you will see that word only in print. You won't hear ubiquitous being used in casual conversation. Not only that, few people even know what the word means.
Also becoming extinct are the words "more" and "also." Replacing them are "additional" and "additionally," respectively. Again, although you see those new words in print, you rarely hear anyone speak them. When, for example, is the last time you heard anyone at the breakfast table say, "I would like some additional milk, please." Also, I pose this question: If we write "additional" which means more, why aren't we writing "subtractional" which means less?
The word "years" is being run off the highway of clear writing in favor of "decades." Beyond me is why any writer would purposely and unnecessarily complicate writing and force readers to do the math. A recent news story revealed it had been "nearly three decades" since the crime, "two decades" since the murderer had been convicted and "more than a decade" since the murderer had first become eligible for parole. Yet, no actual dates were given for any of the three events. Not only does that word lead to the distorting of facts, it also is responsible for such redundancies as "the decade of the 1980s."
Then there are old and disgusting holdovers such as the use of "currently" which means the present. Since currently must be used with another present tense verb "is" or "are" to make sense, the result is an unneeded and unwanted redundancy.
Put together just these three examples and you could write this sentence: Additionally, after a decade and a half, the new model is currently becoming ubiquitous. Ignore them and the same sentence would read: Also, after 15 years, the new model is becoming more common.
I could go on to complete an extensive list of glaring example. But you get the idea.
A common but limp and irresponsible argument others use in waving away such concerns is that our language is constantly changing. That's true but only in the sense of new words that need to be added, words such as "internet" and "website." The argument fails when applied to the logic and principles of clear and concise writing.
I realize you might not be taking any of this seriously and even if you are, you may not be willing to fully explore all the opportunities you have for cleaning up your writing.
So I will make it easy for you. Beginning now, stop using these words: ubiquitous, additional, additionally, currently and decades.
Posted: December 8, 2008
It's been almost 16 years since I wrote the following words in a column in the AAEA ByLine entitled “Eight Ways To Feel Better.”
“Write a letter of congratulations to someone, even a total stranger, who you admire for whatever reason. Because they may not be as confident about their accomplishments as you think they are, they will deeply appreciate your vote of confidence. And you will be a better person for having freely offered it.”
Do I do this myself? Yes, I do and for two extremely important reasons. First, it challenges me to bring out the best of my journalistic ability. I must find the right words to accurately express what I wish to convey. Then I must carefully arrange them so they can’t possibly be misinterpreted. My communication must not be so short that it doesn’t give justice to the occasion. Neither can it be so long as to belabor such an important and personal point. I must remind myself I’m not writing a feature story for a mass audience and no editor is going to check it. Instead, this is a matter that’s only between me and another person.
Second, it’s an exciting and humanitarian thing to do. That’s because there is no way for me to know to what extent my vote of confidence will encourage that person to go on to even greater achievements. For all I know, what I write to them could be the highlight not only of their day but for a month or longer. One person to whom I had written such a note wrote back to say he had included it in a special file of papers he considers so valuable he will never discard them. That’s humbling.
If I were to add to what I wrote years ago, it would be that you should never allow such an important missive to be cheapened and degraded because it was sent via email. Instead, use an honest to goodness piece of paper and send it via regular mail. Type the message if you wish. But sign it with your own handwriting and either print or write in longhand the address on the envelope. As the old love song says, little things mean a lot.
Posted: November 7, 2008
Much has happened since June, 1993. That was two wars and four presidential elections ago. Accessing the internet was still in its infancy. And only a few had thought about growing corn for ethanol.
That's when I wrote a column entitled "Where's The Funny Stuff?" In it were the following statements: "There may be a great opportunity for some of the entrepreneurs in our ranks to start a business called 'The Funny Farm Syndicate.' It would gather and commission all kinds of humor for use by ag magazines."
Frankly, I wouldn't change a word. I still believe agriculture, farming, ranching is a storehouse of some of the best humor ever created.
Over my professional lifetime, I have listened to countless stories, jokes, one liners and anecdotes guaranteed to cause reactions ranging from big smiles to hysteric laughter. Some have created such vivid mental images they could be successfully captured in a cartoon.
I've heard them from scientists recounting experiments that went awry, ag engineers who couldn't have predicted some wacko outcome, farmers and ranchers whose experiences proved they were human and salesmen who have had many things happen to them far funnier than any involving a farmer's daughter.
Ag journalists are in the best position to hear it all. They also have the best access to both production and marketing opportunities to gather, sort, publish and sell everything funny. Whether in print or on the internet, there's no good reason why humor can't be a part of ag's editorial mix.
I'm still waiting for someone to pick up and run with this opportunity.
Posted: August 25, 2008
The following are the last lines of what I wrote in a 1994 issue of the AAEA ByLine concerning the Sandhills region of western Nebraska:
"I have imagined what it would be like for the AAEA to have a retreat there. We could share, reveal and imagine against a backdrop in which days and nights are indicated only by the presence or the absence of the sun.
But that's a fantasy. So you must go alone to that special place where your thirst for the profound can be quenched.
Once you do, the Sandhills will reward you with both the courage to leave and the urge to return."
Have my thoughts changed? Not a bit.
Only three months ago I drove the full length of the Sandhills on Nebraska Highway 2, my first time back in several years. The day was gloomy. Low clouds and a brisk wind gave the landscape an unfriendly almost sinister feel. Even the birds were flying low.
To the unknowing, that could have been considered a "bad" day. But not me. In sharp contrast, I was being reinforced by deep and positive feelings I have for this unique physical feature of North America that sprawls over more than 12 million acres.
If you get even close to the Sandhills, take time to venture into them. Then stay stopped long enough to appreciate the magical quiet of your surroundings. Breath deeply. Let it all lavish upon you a peacefulness and solitude that must be experienced to be believed.
If you can't go, at least read Stephen R. Jones' book, "The Last Prairie, A Sandhills Journal," ISBN 0-07-135347-X.
As for having a retreat there for ag journalists, practicalities dictate that will never happen, no matter how great the potential for mental therapy.
But I still believe it would be a grand thing.
Posted: May 15, 2008
I wrote the following 14 years ago in an issue of the AAEA ByLine:
"If you are a young writer, ask a wise and willing peer twice your age to share with you what lies ahead of you as a person and a writer.
If you are an older writer, relish the reality that you can tap a vast wellspring of memories in your search for how to put the right touch on a sentence, a paragraph, a story, an idea or a concept."
If you are in the middle of your writing career, acknowledge that what you are experiencing is becoming an increasingly valuable asset as you think and write.
Do I believe those are still valid points? Yes, but with these conditions:
First Point: Two factors make this much more difficult, the attitude many youth have toward the older generation and the shortage of time in which to conduct such a dialog. Neither, however, should be used as a reason not to have such a potentially valuable dialog.
Second Point: This is still true because the basics don't change. Still, all veteran journalists must be on guard so as not to sound out of date or ignore what's required to reach the audience because "I've never done it that way."
Third Point: Clearly, the last point is still valid.