By Stacey J. Haseleu
The Importance of Editing
The shift from old media (such as printed materials in newspapers and magazines) to new media (like posts on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and privately run blogs) specifically impacts the way writers not only need to write, but how they edit as well. In old media, writers were faced with the challenge of editing a piece of work down to the bare bones and essentials of a story line in order for it to fit in the allocated space designated by the newspaper or magazine editor, but with the shift to new media outlets, writers are now forced to self edit without the instruction of editors looking for a specific word count.
If editing is not a pre-requisite from an editor, why is it still imperative, perhaps even more important, for writers to edit their pieces? The answer to this question is rooted more in audience than space constrictions. Studies show that with the new media age, readers are looking for information in a quick, easy-to-read format allowing them to get the news and quickly move on to the next portion of information or to check their emails or to spread the word in a quick snippet on their own form of social media. Brevity is power in the digital media age.
If writers can hook a reader’s attention and then maintain the attention of the reader until all of the important information is read, then the writing is acceptable by new media standards. So in an age of Twitter “tweets” that are 150 words or less, professional writers aren’t competing with one another to edit their pieces down for the sake of fitting into a newspaper column print, but they are competing to grab and keep the attention of online readers.
The piece I chose to edit is actually one of my blog posts. During the first term of this semester, I was enrolled in a Political Writing course. We wrote weekly “fact check” articles regarding the current political campaigns. One of the most difficult concepts of these articles was keeping them at a length that provided three major components: what the candidate or campaign was claiming, what the opposing candidate said about the issue, and what was actually true. This was difficult to achieve while also creating a piece that would hold the attention of an audience reading a personal blog. It is for this reason that I chose one of these weekly blogs as my editing piece for this assignment.
I first took out the anecdote I used in the article. This was the part of the article where I made a comparison. When writing the piece, I thought it added substance by providing the reader with a real-life example. After I took this part out, though, I realized that the audience that was reading my political blog was, for the most part, intelligent and informed voters that already had somewhat of an understanding of the basics of Medicare. Using the anecdote to allow the audience to relate was actually condescending to the reader and didn’t speak to the overall theme of the article.
The second change I worked on was converting my parenthetical citations to actual links to the websites where I obtained my information. In the age of writing for digital media I believe it is absolutely imperative to provide readers with in-text links to the actual sites where you get information. No one reading on a digital media site will take the time to scroll down to the end of the article, copy down the link, and re-type it into their browser to see your source.
Format: Justifying Paragraphs
The other style change that I made was justifying the paragraphs. In old media, such as newspapers and magazines, articles were justified so that the words could fit appropriately into the allotted column spaces. In the age of new media, I also believe that format plays a large role in the audiences’ readability of information. The justification of paragraphs allows the eye to continue to flow from one sentence to another. When the paragraphs aren’t justified, they look rugged and make the eye stop at the end of the line instead of continuing throughout the document.
The next edit I made to the piece was to cut out phrases that were redundant. In political rhetoric, I find it a given that candidates use redundancy in their campaigns. They can speak about one subject for twenty minutes and basically say the same sentence using different words. So, when writing about politics, I found that my article did much of the same redundancy that the candidates and their campaigns are guilty of also doing; I was stating the same idea over again using different words and phrases, so I edited or changed these parts of my piece.
Cutting “Flowery” Wording
The final cut I made to the piece was adjectives. When writing a news article, “flowery” adjectives aren’t necessary. The point of a news article is to provide information to a reader, not to provide a Charles Dickens-like (I use his name when describing excessive imagery) account of events. Taking away adjectives and adverbs doesn’t change the substance of the point you are making, it just gets to the point in a more reasonable and timely manner.
After achieving all of the edits, my piece dropped from 750 words to 511 words; a 30% decrease in words, but no loss of facts relevant to the central theme of the article. The surgical cuts to the piece make it easier to read, quicker to read, and more likely to be read in its entirety. It also looks much better on my blog!
The original article can be viewed by clicking here.
The Edited Article:
The Truth About Medicare
By Stacey J. Haseleu
Throughout the course of Wednesday’s Presidential debate, Mitt Romney made it clear that his talking point for Medicare was a broken-record account of Obama’s $716 billion dollar cut.
In fact, the transcripts of the debate show that Romney mentioned “$716 billion” and “Medicare” in the same sentence 10 times throughout the course of the 90-minute debate. He said, “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare and the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program.”
While it’s true that President Obama will cut $716 billion of spending from Medicare over the next 10 years, this figure is misleading.
Mitt Romney insinuated that the $716 billion dollar cut would negatively impact Medicare recipients; however, Factcheck.org’s article entitled “Medicare’s Piggy Bank,” states, “…the opposite is true. These cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the program’s finances out longer than they would last otherwise.”
Medicare has four parts: Part A (hospital insurance), Part B (medical insurance), Part C (Medicare advantage plans), and Part D (prescription drug coverage). Part A is at no cost to retirees and is what people pay for through their FICA payroll tax. These payments are placed into a treasury fund.
While some voters believe the money they contribute through each paycheck is kept in a “piggy bank” somewhere for when they retire, they are mistaken. The Medicare trust fund works on a “pay-as-you-go” system where funding is taken out on an as-needed basis. Individuals presently in the workforce are actually paying for those currently retired and on Medicare.
With the number of individuals in the workforce disproportionate to the amount of baby boomers on Medicare, the system is financially burdened. There isn’t enough funding in the trust to cover benefits.
In fact, the current Medicare Part A trust fund only has around $244.2 billion. Factcheck.org says, “the Part A trust fund was expected to be exhausted in 2016.”
To make up for the rapid depletion of funding in Medicare, President Obama implemented cuts to spending. If the spending of Medicare continues, it will be bankrupt by 2016. Obama had a choice; he could continue to spend and let the funds run out in 2016, or he could reduce the amount of spending and keep Medicare running through 2024. He chose to cut spending to increase the longevity of the Medicare treasury.
What type of “spending” did Obama cut to extend the life expectancy of Medicare? Romney would have you believe the cuts were directly taken from Medicare recipients, but the Congressional Budget Office’s report to Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner indicates that The Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare”, diminishes the spending of Medicare Part A through major reductions in payments to hospitals in the amount of $415 billion.
With the cuts, the CBO estimates that Medicare will not exhaust in 2016. In fact, if the reduction in payments to hospitals continues, Medicare will not exhaust until the year 2024. This means “Obamacare” actually extended the life expectancy of Medicare by 8 years.