Latest email exchange with the kind copyeditor at LA Times who reads over my posts at Emerald City once they go up:
Hi Siel,
I’m not sure what you mean by “big up” in this post. Or is that a typo?
“Actually, I have a third kind who big up green travel but pretty much just drive everywhere. Hi Hannah!”
My response:
He then emailed back — He wanted to change big up to support, “for the non-hipsters.” No, I said.
In some ways I really feel from my copyeditor. Once upon a time I worked briefly as a copyeditor, but I think I’d go batty if I had to spend my day going into every blog post to change all the pms into p.m.s, all the 2s into twos….
If you’ve noticed a strange level of consistency — as well as a sudden decrease in the number of odd contractions I tend to use — that’s the reason.
But changing big up to support actually changes the tone of the writing — s’where I draw the line. Isn’t big up a pretty common phrase?
I’m not sure if it’s an everyday sort of phrase, but I was able to gather your meaning from its context.
Comment by Yumi — October 29, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Actually, I’m disappointed in the LAT and in the copyeditor specifically (and I used to be a copyeditor myself). It’s another example of old media completely misunderstanding new media. If they want mainstream journalism, they should give you a formal column; if they want a blog, they need to get used to the idea of a personal voice that speaks to some audiences and not to others.
Comment by meg — October 29, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
I think readers who use context clues will get it.
(I use that term all the time, but everyone can’t be as cool as us, can they?)
Comment by eric — October 29, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
I think it’s more this particular copyeditor than the LAT, which officially says “Editing on blogs is done with a light touch. Blog posts should never read like they came from the newspaper. Editing is for typos and possible libel only.”
Comment by Siel — October 29, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Well then, I think you need to send this copyeditor a copy of the Times policy. Or a handsome card on 100% post-consumer-waste stationery that reads BUTT OUT.
Comment by meg — October 29, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Or “BIG OUTS,” if you’d rather be hip & obscure.
Comment by Jamais Cascio — October 29, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I think Meg is being a bit harsh. Although “new media” can use language more freely, clarity is still the paramount concern. So blogging on the LAT should still be held to a different standard from a myspace profile. You still want to get a point across and not just a tone, right?
Comment by Raphael — October 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
So you feel the sentence is unclear?
I just don’t think I need to sound like a copyeditor to get my point across.
Comment by Siel — October 29, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I’m surprised the copyeditor didn’t recommend something like “talk up,” which would have been closer in tone and kept the meaning–and would have been a bit more mainstream, if he or she found it obscure.
Meanwhile, I’ve never heard “big up,” but knew exactly what you meant by it. Maybe the L.A. Times would be more highly regarded if they started with the assumption that their readers can read.
Comment by Kate — October 29, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
No, I don’t think it was unclear in this case, Siel, and I think you were right to stand by your word choice. But I think that a blanket “typos and libel” only rule isn’t really a very good standard to use, and I don’t think it’s a case of the MSM failing to adapt to new media.
Comment by Raphael — October 29, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
Raphael — So the new media blog you (don’t even) write’s held to this more superior and “different” plus “good” standard? Would love to hear why the “typos and libel” only rule isn’t a good enough standard for you.
Clarity’s ONE concern. But no one actually enjoys reading a direction manual, even if it’s very clear. And I’m not writing a fucking myspace profile.
Kate — Talk up, I agree, would’ve been a more appropriate suggestion –
Comment by Siel — October 30, 2007 @ 2:45 am
After I posted, I thought of other examples, such as “make noise about.” Really, there are lots of options, and this sounds like a copyeditor who shouldn’t be cold-reading blogs.
The thing is, just about all writing should have a voice–even news writing. News coverage is supposed to be balanced, not boring. Frankly, even good technical editors have a voice. That’s why the Dummies books are so successful and distinct.
Comment by Kate — October 30, 2007 @ 6:57 am
I want to speak up for “big up.” It’s a phrase I would never use, which is precisely why I love reading it in your blog, along with various other colloquialisms, only some of which I’ve encountered before. Voice isn’t wholly comprised of diction, but vocabulary choice is one of the most obvious ways in which a blog differs from an online column. Kudos to the LAT for the “typos and libel” policy, even if it’s observed more in the breach than the practice.
Comment by meg — October 30, 2007 @ 7:24 am
Siel, I didn’t mean to imply that you were writing a myspace profile. I fully agree with your position about using a different voice in a blog versus a column. And I totally big up your big up. Sorry if I made any offense.
A blog should be understood by its intended audience–not necessarily everyone, of course, but by the people the author is trying to reach. I think the copy editor is struggling with the fact that the LAT usually writes for an extremely broad audience who won’t be familiar with some of those phrases.
Although clarity is a very important concern for good writing, no less important is that it should be fun to read! Which is exactly why I read your blog.
Comment by Raphael — October 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
As a 27-year-old male, I initially had no idea what “big up” meant and I would guess a lot of LA Times readers wouldn’t either. I’d also consider my friends fairly in tune to “modern” slang and not a single one uses the phrase “big up”. And I often listen to rap (where big up is actually used a lot), but the meaning is different from how you use it so it simply adds to the confusion.
Anyway, I’d suggest you consider the audience for your postings - LA Times readers who are unlikely to be young or “hip”. If they don’t understand your posts, your potential positive suggestions will be unheeded.
Comment by L S — October 30, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Wow, lots of discussion about big upping.
My other thought is that “big up” is more often used as a noun, as in “giving big ups to…” Similar to giving a “shout out” or props (or even “mad props”).
Comment by eric — October 31, 2007 @ 9:52 am
The thing is, though, that it is extremely likely that the L.A. Times has two audiences–one that reads in print and one that reads online. The demographics of these two audiences are probably very different. The people reading the blogs probably are a lot more “young” and “hip” than the print readers. I don’t know exactly what the L.A. Times reader/user surveys show, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t have different profiles for the content delivery systems.
Comment by Kate — October 31, 2007 @ 9:41 pm