The most obvious difference between the two forms of writing is structure. By using the term "structure," I am referring to the length and context of the piece of writing. Structure is an important factor because it sets the ground work for my writing. In academic writing, I try to cite numerous examples or personal experiences to illustrate a point. Newspaper writing requires that I condense my points. The writing is supposed to be simple, yet informative, and is crammed into a few inches of type. Writing to fill six inches of type is quite different than filling six double-spaced pages. Structure also translates into differences in word usage. Because of space constrictions, every word counts when writing for a newspaper. The key is to say as much as possible in the fewest words possible. There is a specific "newspaper style" which calls for short paragraphs, constant attribution of information, active voice, and numerous other writing guidelines.
According to newspaper style, paragraphs should be one or two sentences long, with each paragraph including a complete statement or thought. This allows the reader to move from point-to-point quickly, without becoming bored and losing interest in the story. Information in newspaper articles must always be attributed. Academic writing also requires this in the form of citations, but newspaper writing enforces this rule much more strictly. Since no statements can be made by the writer, any piece of information in the story must be attributed to another source, usually a person. If you have not noticed this, read a news article and count how many times you find the word "said." Although a writer may know something to be true, he may not include it in the article without being able to attach someone else's name to it.
The structural freedom I am usually allowed in academic writing opens up entirely new avenues for content. The more generous amount of space that I am allowed in academic writing lets me shed the often constricting rules of newspaper writing and expand my ideas. Instead of the short, snappy paragraphs I use in newspaper writing, I may use a few full paragraphs to make a point. I tend to be exhaustive in my academic writing and more introductory in my newspaper writing. Because of the freedom I am given in academic writing, I can expand on certain ideas, using examples or personal experiences to really drive my points home. My concern for thorough and exhaustive writing often causes me to struggle to trim my papers down to fit maximum lengths, unlike many students I know, who struggle to make the minimum. An example of thorough writing was a term paper I wrote last semester on Fortune magazine. The maximum page length was 25 pages, which seemed like a tremendous amount of space to write about a magazine. After writing and editing the paper I included so much information that I had to resort to changing the layout so my paper could fit within the 25 pages. I changed to the smallest possible font and shrank the margins to allow for more type to appear on each page. I squeezed as much content within the 25 pages. This resulted in a thorough report the magazine.
Another difference in my writing between the two communities is the terminology I use. In academic writing, I often take a more formal tone, and use more complex terminology. I do not do this to impress anyone or to try to "sound intelligent"; it just seems to be a more proper tone when writing for a class. Newspaper writing requires me to break down the complex terminology in favor of shorter, simpler words that everyone can easily understand. Certain stories are of a complex nature, such as NASA projects or even President Clinton's health care plan. These topics need to be interpreted well and related in simple terms to the public. I wrote a story on September 2 concerning a $1 million grant that Syracuse University's aerospace engineering department received to work on hypersonics, a technological advance in aviation. When speaking with the professors about the project, they explained the project in rather technical terms. What appeared in the article, however, was a much simpler explanation than the professors gave me. The professors I interviewed gave me specifics about aerodynamics, structure and the speed of sound, but my description of hypersonics reads: "'Hypersonics deals with air travel several times faster than today's technology would allow,' said Thong Quoc Dang, a professor in the mechanical and aerospace department."
"'Hypersonics translates into higher speeds, better performance and efficiency,' Dang said." It is the journalist's job to break these complex ideas down into easily digestible portions for the general public. Listening to these aerospace engineers was somewhat like reading Jennifer Gebelein's "Giardia." This piece contained very technical information aimed at a small discourse community. If Gebelein were a journalist trying to explain giardia, she would have to make the terminology much more simple, as I did for the hypersonics story (Giardia 42).
On occasions when I have written in overly technical terms for newspaper articles, I have been told by editors, "Remember, you're writing this for Joe Six-pack." This basically is a reminder that I should keep the terminology simple. Choosing the level of terminology I will use is directly linked to the discourse community I am writing for. A "discourse community" is a group of individuals with a common interest who communicate in a similar manner (Porter 38). Each discourse community has its acceptable terminology and ideas, which its members must understand. Writing for a discourse community also involves presupposition, that is, an assumed understanding of certain material or knowledge (Porter 43). My newspaper and academic writing have entirely different discourse communities, and I therefore must change my writing to fit those communities. In academic writing, my discourse community consists only of my professor and classmates. When writing an academic paper, I am allowed to presuppose some prior knowledge of the subject I am writing about. My newspaper writing is aimed at a much broader community. Because I write for a college daily, I consider my discourse community to be the Syracuse campus and community.
Another way my writing changes between the two communities is how I involve my opinion. Much of the academic writing I have done recently has allowed me to inject my opinion or add personal analysis to a topic, which would be considered the greatest of sins at a newspaper. Newspaper writing requires complete objectivity; opinion is not allowed, regardless of how strongly one may feel about an issue. The fact that I cannot make my opinion heard in news articles sometimes becomes a source of frustration for me. I often have strong beliefs that I am forced to suppress when covering and writing a story.
One such example I can recall is my coverage of a white supremacist march in Auburn, New York. I went into the assignment knowing it would be a challenge to avoid revealing any bias against the white supremacist group. Personally, I am disgusted by their ideals and purpose, but was obliged to try to get both sides of the story. While reporting at the march, I had trouble restraining my feelings about the white supremacists. I found myself wanting to join in with the angry chants against the group, yet I just observed from a distance, taking notes of everything that went on. I also tried to interview members of the white supremacist group to try to get their side of the story, but they were surrounded by an angry mob, and I could not reach them. Instead I had to settle for what they shouted at the angry crowd from behind the safety of police lines. In writing the story I was obligated to stick to the facts. I reported exactly what I saw without interjecting any commentary on the subject of white supremacist groups. If I had written a paper for a class which allowed me to state my opinion on the matter, I am certain I would have had plenty to say. I probably also would have researched hate groups to try to understand their motives. In writing the newspaper story I merely reported an event; if writing an academic paper, I could have examined an issue.
Amid all the differences between newspaper and academic writing there are some similarities. One similarity is the way in which both draw upon others' information to inform. It is surprising how similar the information gathering processes are. In newspaper writing, all facts are gathered from and attributed to outside sources. Because the journalist is not permitted to add his or her own insight, journalistic writing could hardly be considered original. There is a strikingly similar method for gathering and expressing information in academic writing that is less often noticed. The existence of intertextuality in academic writing shows that this form is also in many ways un-original. Intertextuality states that all writing draws on past writings (Porter 34). No forms of writing are exempt from the influence of past terms, allusions, clichˇs and other forms of expression. A main component of academic writings is research. What is research besides reading others' writings and paraphrasing them for your own purposes? Just as journalism gathers others' ideas, academic papers do the same: they simply hide it better. Another similarity between the two forms of writing that relates to my personal writing style is my concern for quality in both. I feel that any piece of writing which bears my name is a reflection of me; therefore I strive for a sound, thorough and complete piece in all forms of writing. I do this in newspaper writing, despite space constraints. I maximize my space and strive for thorough reporting in my newspaper articles, including as much information as possible. I always find myself trying to wheel and deal with my editors for more room to write.
Part of the difficulty as a journalist is knowing what to include and what not to include in your story. Although I realize this, I always try to fit as much into the stories as I can. Many of my colleagues at The Daily Orange just come in and type their stories, only bothering to include minimal content. They are satisfied with capturing the main points to a story. I cannot seem to do this. I always try to give the reader a more holistic understanding of my story. For a story I wrote last semester about the possible re-opening of Sutter's Mill and Mining Co., a bar near campus, I had so much information that I couldn't contain it in one story. When I finished, an editor and I went over it to trim it down. We both decided that almost all of the information deserved to run in the paper, so we decided to make it a two-part series.
The same concern for quality is present in my academic writing. This is why I insist on exhausting a topic rather than just scratching the surface. Thorough academic writing often comes at the risk of sounding "long winded." Some have said that I could improve my (academic) writing if I wrote more concisely. To this I reply, maybe, but is this necessarily a problem? If the extra writing I include helps to reinforce my points, then I think it has a place in my paper. As long as I am not being repetitious or just going off on a tangent, then I think my paper is enhanced by any extra analysis. Trimming a paper down to stay within maximum requirements is far less of a problem than struggling to fill a paper up.
I think it is clear that my writing changes a great deal between the newspaper and academic communities. It would be impossible for them to not be different. Writing for two entirely different discourse communities requires a conscious effort to adopt different styles to fit those communities. I feel both forms of writing have their strong points. Newspapers are quick, easy to read, and lay the facts out on the table. My academic writing often allows me to "air out" my thoughts on a subject, often permitting an in-depth analysis. Hopefully my newspaper writing is short but informative, and my academic writing is thorough rather than "long winded." Regardless of which form of writing I participate in, the key is to put forth as much content as possible, while staying within the writing guidelines established by the respective discourse communities.
Works Cited
Porter, James. "Inter-textuality and the Discourse Community." Rhetoric Review 5.1 (1986): 34-47.
Gebelein, Jennifer. "Giardia." Unpublished paper, Syracuse University (1993).