From an editorial standpoint, comments that stood out to me that were shared by multiple people were the comments that acknowledged what writers did right and then followed up a way to improve it from areader standpoint to give that alternate perspective while reassuring the reader that it’s not wrong, it just could be better. Another comment that I think was helpful was those surrounding structuring. With this being one of my weaknesses just from working with a new style of writing and seeing recommendations for not only my writing but others helps become familiar with writing structure that works with readers.
We had a great discussion in class for workshop #1, and on a more general note, working in a group to think through problems or highlight what is going well impacts my writing in such a great way. Everyone will have different struggles in their writing, and everyone has a different perspective on what is confusing or what speaks to them. Listening to the class weigh in on the other drafts, I gathered so much useful information surrounding citation forms, bylines, and mechanics of the feature story versus hard news just by paying attention to the group conversation. More specifically, a few comments from my fellow “editorial team” members that stuck out to me related to finding the story and thinking about what is missing. I believe it was Finn who mentioned finding the story, and I think it is so easy when we are drafting to get caught up in all the information we have gathered. Trying to construct a coherent piece of writing out of sometimes disjointed and surplus info can be overwhelming. Still, the beauty of getting all the information down is that you have so much flexibility and options to think about what you want to say. In a similar statement from Nick, I think, is this idea that once you have a solid draft, you can begin to think about what is missing. Techniques like taking the time to consider whether there are gaps in what you know you want to get across versus what is on the page. Both of these points relate to finding that focus and portraying it to your audience in the best and most genuine way possible, which I feel is essential in practicing writing like a journalist.
From an editorial view I think that most impactful ones were about the content of the pieces that were volunteered. Finn’s input about finding the focus was good. Because then it grounds the writer in what they are targeting and helps with the editing process. Cole and Kayleigh comments on what is repetitive in a feature seemed to help as an editorial stand point, because it’s hard to combine information that isn’t at the readers fingertips as well as interviews into a concise format for someone to read especially with a set word count.
In our feedback session February 23, I think there were a few comments that were very helpful. I think Jesse’s comment about using certain phrases, such as “talk to me about that” to elicit more information from a interview was helpful. It’s difficult to think of things to say on the fly to get more information without making the interviewee uncomfortable, at least for me, so that type of comment is helpful information and gives more tools to the aspiring journalist in interviews. Another helpful suggestion by one of the members of class was to read your piece aloud to yourself to check if it makes sense and flows correctly. It lets you find natural pauses and breaks in your writing, allowing you to break it up into digestible chunks and making it sound professional. It additionally helps root out awkward writing, and to determine where a sentence goes on too long. It might also help get rid of some of the additional words and padding in writing to get it down to the most concise way possible. In addition, I think the discussion about the storytelling and point of my peer’s articles helped me think about those elements in my writing, and how I can emphasize them to create the best possible version of my feature, without superfluous writing. Finding the story and finding the focus were themes across the stories read in class, which was helpful to reflect on and find the elements that are most important in my own feature story.
The first comment I found helpful was everyone given potential ideas toad to the story. As the writer you can a bunch of different information and you must take it all in and create your own story with what you receive. Hearing others give their creative visions gives side to a story the author might have never thought of but can now use the feedback to create an even better story. The second comment that was helpful was hearing Professor Miller’s thoughts on each of the stories as well as the feedback. Hearing from a bunch of your peers is extremely helpful especially with knowing your audience. However, hearing from no only the primary audience of the story but someone who has been in an actual editing room gives a lot more details no one might have noticed or adds credibility and importance from the feedback of your peers.
Spending time breaking down and improving our feature articles is beneficial for everyone under review that day and the days to come. I thought everyone did a great job of balancing out the positive comments with suggestions to improve their writing. Some minor writing habits that Jesse reminded the class of were new paragraphs after the quotes and being consistent when using a name and pronouns. I think a lot of students forget that just because they are well-versed in their Feature topic doesn’t mean the readers are. Having breaks between sentences and information is a great way to keep the article attractive and easy to understand. I also think there’s a lot of pressure on getting quotes correct and the formation right. Being consistent with implied pronouns and the use of first or last names helps condense the words and organize the article. Throughout the class discussion, it was mentioned multiple times by students that writers should consider the restructuring of the articles. Sometimes the stress of trying to get all the information down overpowers the focus of the article and can create confusion. Rereading a piece, considering the information and what connects to what is great advice I’ll definitely use through my writing career. Each review of a Feature not only benefits that writer but gives other classmates an idea of what they may need to work on for this class and their writing style in general.
During this first workshopping experience, I took note of a few interesting points. With Kayleigh’s piece, I recall someone mentioning the potential interview opportunities with locals or students on the project discussed. I recognize the importance of incorporating all aspects of the who, what, where, and in this case, perhaps, the why. I would like to see how thoroughly I have done that in my work. I also saw this in Phoebe’s piece, where ensuring the journalist has all of those elements in the lead is vital for the reader to get the scope of the topic at hand. Also, in many of the drafts workshopped, I heard many comments regarding the integration of interviews and sources, particularly about gaining information from all perspectives on each matter tackled by the journalists. I realize I may need to do this in my feature, as I only have two sources currently, so this aspect of the conversation from class was impactful for me. Moving forward, I will take these bits of advice and apply them to my own feature story, and I hope the writers got something out of it as well.
During our first feedback session, there were a few pieces of shared advice that I thought were really helpful! The first one was from Cole, who suggested to Kayleigh that she read her article draft aloud to herself, in order for her to better identify and fix grammatical errors. I thought that this suggestion was really helpful, since it not only will help fix grammar, but could actually be useful in finding holes in logic or a section of the piece that needs more context or information. Another piece of advice that I found really compelling was Finn’s suggestion to “find the story”. This is something that I have struggled with personally, as there are so many moving pieces of my story, but it is something that is desperately needed, in order for the journalist to make a compelling article. It’s definitely easier said than done, but it is vitally important, and I think Finn’s suggestion to “find the story” was very insightful.
Journal #9: EDITORIAL TEAM REACTIONS feedback group #1 (focus on 2 comments)
In my opinion the two most helpful comments made during this feedback session were #1 Remember your audience mr miller. There were certain sections in my piece that sounded a little too scientific and were a little hard to comprehend for my classmates, for example when I said soft sedimentary rock which basically just means soil. It’s important to keep in mind who will be reading your piece and to make sure the reading is digestible for people of all different backgrounds and to not get too wrapped up in your writing which is easy to do when you care about what you are writing about. The second comment that stood out to me was from Cole and it was to read your piece out loud. I like this comment and think it is important because this is something all of us could benefit from before submitting the final project. Reading your piece out loud allows you to catch simple grammar errors and helps you to realize were the piece could flow better.
The two comments and points of constructive criticism that definitely stood out the most to me about my piece was the missing information surrounding the people I interviewed, and how it felt that there was a lot of room for expansion in my story, while I don’t necessarily agree that the overall scope of my story should be broadened because I feel like one of the core pieces of general feedback given in almost every feedback session was to condense pull back and find the story. I feel like probing into more topics surrounding the hiring process like why there are so many new hires at UNE coming in recently over the past year or so is a completely separate idea and story that deserves an article if not several articles to its own, and that isn’t what I set out to write about in the first place, I can agree that there is a lot of information still missing from my piece, and since I have th real estate and measures to fill in that information that is exactly what I am going to do.
10 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 9”
From an editorial standpoint, comments that stood out to me that were shared by multiple people were the comments that acknowledged what writers did right and then followed up a way to improve it from areader standpoint to give that alternate perspective while reassuring the reader that it’s not wrong, it just could be better. Another comment that I think was helpful was those surrounding structuring. With this being one of my weaknesses just from working with a new style of writing and seeing recommendations for not only my writing but others helps become familiar with writing structure that works with readers.
We had a great discussion in class for workshop #1, and on a more general note, working in a group to think through problems or highlight what is going well impacts my writing in such a great way. Everyone will have different struggles in their writing, and everyone has a different perspective on what is confusing or what speaks to them. Listening to the class weigh in on the other drafts, I gathered so much useful information surrounding citation forms, bylines, and mechanics of the feature story versus hard news just by paying attention to the group conversation. More specifically, a few comments from my fellow “editorial team” members that stuck out to me related to finding the story and thinking about what is missing. I believe it was Finn who mentioned finding the story, and I think it is so easy when we are drafting to get caught up in all the information we have gathered. Trying to construct a coherent piece of writing out of sometimes disjointed and surplus info can be overwhelming. Still, the beauty of getting all the information down is that you have so much flexibility and options to think about what you want to say. In a similar statement from Nick, I think, is this idea that once you have a solid draft, you can begin to think about what is missing. Techniques like taking the time to consider whether there are gaps in what you know you want to get across versus what is on the page. Both of these points relate to finding that focus and portraying it to your audience in the best and most genuine way possible, which I feel is essential in practicing writing like a journalist.
From an editorial view I think that most impactful ones were about the content of the pieces that were volunteered. Finn’s input about finding the focus was good. Because then it grounds the writer in what they are targeting and helps with the editing process. Cole and Kayleigh comments on what is repetitive in a feature seemed to help as an editorial stand point, because it’s hard to combine information that isn’t at the readers fingertips as well as interviews into a concise format for someone to read especially with a set word count.
In our feedback session February 23, I think there were a few comments that were very helpful. I think Jesse’s comment about using certain phrases, such as “talk to me about that” to elicit more information from a interview was helpful. It’s difficult to think of things to say on the fly to get more information without making the interviewee uncomfortable, at least for me, so that type of comment is helpful information and gives more tools to the aspiring journalist in interviews. Another helpful suggestion by one of the members of class was to read your piece aloud to yourself to check if it makes sense and flows correctly. It lets you find natural pauses and breaks in your writing, allowing you to break it up into digestible chunks and making it sound professional. It additionally helps root out awkward writing, and to determine where a sentence goes on too long. It might also help get rid of some of the additional words and padding in writing to get it down to the most concise way possible. In addition, I think the discussion about the storytelling and point of my peer’s articles helped me think about those elements in my writing, and how I can emphasize them to create the best possible version of my feature, without superfluous writing. Finding the story and finding the focus were themes across the stories read in class, which was helpful to reflect on and find the elements that are most important in my own feature story.
The first comment I found helpful was everyone given potential ideas toad to the story. As the writer you can a bunch of different information and you must take it all in and create your own story with what you receive. Hearing others give their creative visions gives side to a story the author might have never thought of but can now use the feedback to create an even better story. The second comment that was helpful was hearing Professor Miller’s thoughts on each of the stories as well as the feedback. Hearing from a bunch of your peers is extremely helpful especially with knowing your audience. However, hearing from no only the primary audience of the story but someone who has been in an actual editing room gives a lot more details no one might have noticed or adds credibility and importance from the feedback of your peers.
Spending time breaking down and improving our feature articles is beneficial for everyone under review that day and the days to come. I thought everyone did a great job of balancing out the positive comments with suggestions to improve their writing. Some minor writing habits that Jesse reminded the class of were new paragraphs after the quotes and being consistent when using a name and pronouns. I think a lot of students forget that just because they are well-versed in their Feature topic doesn’t mean the readers are. Having breaks between sentences and information is a great way to keep the article attractive and easy to understand. I also think there’s a lot of pressure on getting quotes correct and the formation right. Being consistent with implied pronouns and the use of first or last names helps condense the words and organize the article. Throughout the class discussion, it was mentioned multiple times by students that writers should consider the restructuring of the articles. Sometimes the stress of trying to get all the information down overpowers the focus of the article and can create confusion. Rereading a piece, considering the information and what connects to what is great advice I’ll definitely use through my writing career. Each review of a Feature not only benefits that writer but gives other classmates an idea of what they may need to work on for this class and their writing style in general.
During this first workshopping experience, I took note of a few interesting points. With Kayleigh’s piece, I recall someone mentioning the potential interview opportunities with locals or students on the project discussed. I recognize the importance of incorporating all aspects of the who, what, where, and in this case, perhaps, the why. I would like to see how thoroughly I have done that in my work. I also saw this in Phoebe’s piece, where ensuring the journalist has all of those elements in the lead is vital for the reader to get the scope of the topic at hand. Also, in many of the drafts workshopped, I heard many comments regarding the integration of interviews and sources, particularly about gaining information from all perspectives on each matter tackled by the journalists. I realize I may need to do this in my feature, as I only have two sources currently, so this aspect of the conversation from class was impactful for me. Moving forward, I will take these bits of advice and apply them to my own feature story, and I hope the writers got something out of it as well.
During our first feedback session, there were a few pieces of shared advice that I thought were really helpful! The first one was from Cole, who suggested to Kayleigh that she read her article draft aloud to herself, in order for her to better identify and fix grammatical errors. I thought that this suggestion was really helpful, since it not only will help fix grammar, but could actually be useful in finding holes in logic or a section of the piece that needs more context or information. Another piece of advice that I found really compelling was Finn’s suggestion to “find the story”. This is something that I have struggled with personally, as there are so many moving pieces of my story, but it is something that is desperately needed, in order for the journalist to make a compelling article. It’s definitely easier said than done, but it is vitally important, and I think Finn’s suggestion to “find the story” was very insightful.
Journal #9: EDITORIAL TEAM REACTIONS feedback group #1 (focus on 2 comments)
In my opinion the two most helpful comments made during this feedback session were #1 Remember your audience mr miller. There were certain sections in my piece that sounded a little too scientific and were a little hard to comprehend for my classmates, for example when I said soft sedimentary rock which basically just means soil. It’s important to keep in mind who will be reading your piece and to make sure the reading is digestible for people of all different backgrounds and to not get too wrapped up in your writing which is easy to do when you care about what you are writing about. The second comment that stood out to me was from Cole and it was to read your piece out loud. I like this comment and think it is important because this is something all of us could benefit from before submitting the final project. Reading your piece out loud allows you to catch simple grammar errors and helps you to realize were the piece could flow better.
The two comments and points of constructive criticism that definitely stood out the most to me about my piece was the missing information surrounding the people I interviewed, and how it felt that there was a lot of room for expansion in my story, while I don’t necessarily agree that the overall scope of my story should be broadened because I feel like one of the core pieces of general feedback given in almost every feedback session was to condense pull back and find the story. I feel like probing into more topics surrounding the hiring process like why there are so many new hires at UNE coming in recently over the past year or so is a completely separate idea and story that deserves an article if not several articles to its own, and that isn’t what I set out to write about in the first place, I can agree that there is a lot of information still missing from my piece, and since I have th real estate and measures to fill in that information that is exactly what I am going to do.