|
Media Matters
November 26, 2003
Shocked, Shocked That There Is Editing Going
On...!
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
The Nov. 16 edition of NPR's program about media and journalism,
On The Media, looked at the process of editing for radio from
a unique perspective -- that of John Solomon, a new recruit to
public radio.
The program segment is called "Pulling Back the Curtain." Solomon
noted that the process by which the seamless and articulate sound
of public radio is produced is not as effortless as it sounds.
Audio editing is different from content editing. The former actually
changes the spoken word; the latter is the normal copy editing
that all reporters' scripts must undergo. Solomon notes:
Now that I am on the other side of the speaker, it has been
fascinating to discover the importance of behind-the-scenes technical
packaging in bringing about that effect. Of course I want to make
it clear that I have found the NPR News on-air staff, present
company excluded, is indeed smooth and eloquent and normally asks
the right question. But they -- and now, me -- aren't as perfect
as it once seemed.
'Internal Edits'
Solomon's report noted that interviews and reports are subjected
to rigorous technical and content editing. Poorly phrased questions
can be re-organized through digital audio editing to sound crisp.
Stumbling answers that sound like normal speech patterns can be
smoothed out by careful and judicious "internal edits." This means
getting rid of the pauses, stumbles, the "ers" and the "ums."
Then the various thoughts were woven together technically
in a way that would be totally hidden to the listener. In fact,
the public is far less aware of editing on radio than on television
or in print. For example, to eliminate words, a TV producer has
to use more visible means, such as a cutaway shot or jump cut.
Newspaper reporters, by form, must put a break between non-consecutive
quotations, among other constraints.
Is Audio Editing Ethical?
Solomon interviewed a number of people (including me) to ask if
this is ethical or unethical. Or is it just the tradecraft of
radio that allows for a more accessible radio report?
One of the people interviewed is Jonathan Kern. Kern is a lifelong
radio journalist, who is now the executive producer of training
at NPR. He is involved in a yearlong project to codify NPR's
editing procedures to make the production process more transparent
to the listeners.
'Joining Us Now...'
Solomon raised one example that is frequently employed on NPR.
"Joining us now is reporter..." is a time-honored phrase. But often
the interview with Reporter X was recorded prior to the program.
True, the reporter "joined" the host at that moment. But not when
the listeners heard it.
Kern says (and I agree) that this is a minor, but potentially
significant deceit:
- There are hosts who will not say "joining us now" unless
an interview is live, but in my own opinion "joining us" and
"joining us now" mean the same thing to a listener (i.e., not
much, in either case!).
- If hosts feel strongly about the "joining
us" intros, there are lots of ways around them. One can say,
"NPR's Vicky O'Hara has been following the meeting in Singapore.
Vicky -- the centerpiece of this trip..." But note that most
listeners will think of this interview as live IN ANY CASE (Hence
Solomon's quote of my admitting that it does suggest we're live.
Almost everything we say on the air suggests that what we do
is live. I don't see a problem with that, however, and I said
that to Solomon repeatedly.)
- Live interviews are often "rolled over" (replayed for stations
to the west of the Eastern Time Zone where NPR originates),
so whatever "liveness" they have on the first play is lost.
- Whenever the time value of the interview is an essential part
of the story, we re-do the live interview for "rollovers." So
if the reporter says, "Just minutes ago the prime minister spoke
to his cabinet," we may re-do the interview to say, "Just two
hours ago, the prime minister spoke to his cabinet..." or "Earlier
this evening." I pointed out we do this specifically so as to
maintain accuracy, even though listeners may not care about
the time reference. My very informal polling of "civilians"
-- listeners who have not worked in broadcasting -- is that
they assume all the interviews are live, unless the intro specifically
says, "Earlier today, I spoke with Mr. Jones..." But I see no
reason to put the production process on the air in this way,
any more than I would point out "The previous interview has
been heavily edited."
Editing as Necessary, But Not Necessarily Editing...
Almost everything you hear on the radio (except for truly live
programs such as NPR newscasts and Talk of the Nation) is edited. The great
exception is the president of the United States. NPR has a rule
that there be no internal edits on the president's words. The
reasoning is that NPR should not appear to be changing the words
or the meaning of the president. But all others -- politicians
and non-politicians -- are regularly edited.
Sometimes less is more, when it comes to audio editing.
On Saturday, Nov. 22, Weekend All things Considered host
Steve Inskeep spoke to NPR's Lawrence Sheets, who was in the streets
of Tbilisi, Georgia. The interview was barely edited, as far as
I could tell. It was "live-to-tape." That means it was recorded
as it happened. You could hear the protesters chanting as they
walked by. Inskeep remarked to Sheets about the crowd around him.
Sheets strained a bit to hear Inskeep in the studio in Washington,
D.C. (Hear the interview.)
It was an example of live radio that one rarely hears anymore
on NPR News. Granted, if Sheets' answers had been drowned out
or the technical quality had been full of glitches, it would have
been (and should have been) edited or re-recorded to make it more
comprehensible. But it was a great bit of radio because it sounded
live, and the passions from the streets could be clearly heard.
Public radio has an obligation to the listeners not to engage
in "prettifying" or unnecessary editing -- a radio version of
a venial sin. Television has been losing the trust of listeners
for a variety of complicated reasons. I suspect that part of that
is the viewers have come to distrust over-produced and technically
dazzling reportage. Radio's strengths continue to lie in their
simple eloquence. High production values are fine as long as they
are shared and understood -- not distrusted -- by the listeners.
Other Issues: Innumeracy on NPR?
Journalism has often been accused of lacking a good grasp of statistics.
It's called "innumeracy" and is the numeric equivalent of illiteracy.
Recently listener George Richardson pointed out an example on
NPR:
This past weekend (you) repeated the canard that one-half
of all American marriages end up in divorce. This erroneous conclusion
results from data that show that, in each year, there is one divorce
for every two new marriages. However, the marriages took place
in many different years. I have heard this erroneous statistic
stated in the past on NPR. Please do something to correct this
error.
A number of listeners who follow baseball, such as Roger Godin,
pointed out the following minor-league innumeracy:
This morning Bob Edwards did an interview with John Feinstein
on the death of (Warren Spahn). John indicated that... Spahn held
the major league record for home runs by a pitcher with 35. While
that is the National League record, the American League and overall
Major League record is 36 by Wes Farrell of the Cleveland Indians.
My source for this is The Book of Baseball Records by Seymour
Siwoff, Elias Sports Bureau.
And Professor James A. Perkins, chair of the English department
at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Penn., rapped knuckles
on this one:
During ATC on 11/20/03 from Istanbul, Turkey (you) said that a
taxi was decimated. Your reporter was apparently using decimated
as a synonym for destroyed; it is not. My question... is why would
the terrorists blow up 1/10th of a taxi or blow up one of 10 taxies?
Either of these actions could be described as decimating a taxi.
More examples of journalistic innumeracy will have to wait for
a future column.
Listeners can contact me at 202-513-3245 or by e-mail at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
