Last Updated: May 20, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Good writing
Editors nag and beg their reporters to get people into their stories,
often without success. The profile seems like the logical answer, since
profiles, by definition, center on a person. Yet many profiles don’t contain
any people either. How can that be?
Profiles fail for two reasons: the writer tries to be definitive, and
the writer gets swamped by the resume. Actually, that’s the same reason.
The least successful profiles merely rehash the subject’s resume chronologically,
and that resume squeezes out the really interesting stuff, even if the
reporter has it in the notebook. The writer starts typing the resume paragraphs;
runs out of time, energy, and space; and the juicy bits die spiral-bound.
The best profiles include two or three interesting aspects of the person,
which sometimes contradict and always transcend the resume.
A little coaching can produce a deep profile, but no amount of editing
can fatten a thin one.
Tackling the block
To keep the resume from swamping the profile, have the writer first
move it entirely into a sidebar or block. I’ve only encountered one writer
who managed to duplicate the entire contents of a resume block in the paragraphs
beside it.
You can arrange the block chronologically, e.g., birth, education, accomplishments,
prizes. Resume blocks can have themed sections, such as education, accomplishments,
dreams, books read recently, charges dismissed, etc. The resume sidebar
could comprise a series of pictures, with chronological cutlines.
The coaching editor will suggest the block in the assignment stage,
and will follow up by asking the reporter to turn in the sidebar before
typing or even designing the main bar. A coach might pick up tempting hints
in the resume worth further reporting, and might predict graphic and photographic
possibilities.
Briefing and debriefing
The writer should explore the paper’s library or online resources before
the interview. Gathering the resume in a face-to-face interview wastes
the subject’s and the reporter’s precious time. Good interviewers leap
off from the resume, rather than drowning in it.
Talking with the writer before the interview can also lead the writer
to imagine possible areas to develop, usually by good questions:
-
What’s unique about this person?
-
How does this person manage to do what she does so fast, so long, so originally?
-
Where does this person’s strength or weakness come from?
-
What does this person do that the public does not see?
-
What does this person really want to accomplish?, etc.
Talking with the writer after the interview, but before the writer starts
tying typing helps develop a point for the piece and gives the editor a
chance to review the visual possibilities, and negotiate a length and a
deadline. The coach who hears nothing but resume details can milk the reporter
to see if the potentially interesting material lurks unrecognized in the
notebook, again by asking good questions, such as the ones above. If the
reporter’s notes prove as as thin as the dialogue, the reporting should
continue. Obviously, the conversation will go better if the reporter submits
the resume sidebar first.
Sending it back
What happens if you still get a shallow profile after all these efforts?
Cynics and good-guy editors usually just edit the mess, and print it. Then
once again you’ve told the entire newsroom that dull profiles are good
enough. And you’ll get a lot more of them. You get what you print.
So, you send the profile back, and you send the reporter back into the
field.
Think you don’t have time for all this hand holding? Well, you have
a choice: you can talk a little bit with your reporters in the front end
and get good profiles, or you can spend a lot of time in the back end editing
and reading bad ones.
Fry, an affiliate of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, works
as an independent writing coach in Charlottesville, Va. Call him at 804/296-6830,
or e-mail him at 74072.3235@compuserve.com.
