And now, the real post

Editors were again pleasantly surprised at the depth of the daily paper, particularly as we approach the Fourth of July weekend, traditionally one of the slowest times of the year. One miss, senior editor Carla Savalli noted, was the failure to refer between the story of a survivor of a fireworks accident and a story on fire safety . “If that package doesn’t do something to remind people, I don’t know what will.”

What’s next for Morrison?

Savalli noted that Adam Morrison is getting a pretty good shake in the Charlotte press, evident in the profile on today’s sports cover. Sports editor Joe Palmquist said the honeymoon period may only be temporary. “Belive me that all this will be turned completely around if he doesn’t play well.”

When asked whether we’d send someone to cover Morrison’s first game, Palmquist hedged his bets. We may send someone when he comes to Seattle or Portland, he said, but probably won’t send anyone as far as Charlotte.

The knock-down drag-out issue of the day

Bev Vorpahl, a former editor who currently works part-time on our copydesk, dropped by to voice her objection to the use of the word “elderly” to describe a 68- and 69-year-old couple in a brief about a robbery today. “I’m 67 1/2, and I’m not elderly,” Vorpahl protested.

The AP Stylebook is on her side:

elderly Use this word carefully and sparingly.
It is appropriate in generic phrases that do not refer to specific individuals: concern for the elderly, a home for the elderly, etc.
If the intent is to show that an individual’s faculties have deteriorated, cite a graphic example and give attribution for it.
Apply the same principle to terms such as senior citizen.

The term was in the sheriff’s department press release that the story was written from, but editors generally agreed that it probably shouldn’t have been used.

This spawned an extended discussion after the meeting over the circumstances under which subjective descriptive terms such as “middle-aged” or “upscale” are appropriate. We try to provide as much detail as possible to give the readers a full picture of the news, but at what point to such details become extraneous, or even prejudicial?

I’ll start a thread on News is a Conversation for discussion…