Our media editing class is reading “Coaching Writers” by Roy Peter Clark (@RoyPeterClark) of the Poynter Institute and Don Fry (@donaldkfry), a long-time writing coach. We are reflecting on what it means to “coach” a writer and on the differences between editors who “coach” and editors who “fix.” The students in the class are posting their responses to the following questions, but we invite anyone to join our conversation.
- Thinking of editing as “coaching” is probably a new idea to many of us. We’re usually trained, through English and journalism classes, to think of editing as “fixing” and “cleaning up.” Sometimes journalists new to the idea of coaching greet it with skepticism. Is “coaching” a novel concept to you? And if so, what do you think of it? Is it realistic? Worthwhile? Could you apply it to your experiences in class, with campus media,or in an internship? What questions do you have about how coaching might work?
- Think about your experience with editors (or with teachers who have graded your journalistic writing). Were they primarily “coaches” or “fixers”? Give examples of the kind of feedback you received from them, and what you learned from that feedback. Which kind of editor did you prefer? If you have done some editing, which kind of editor are you? Which kind do you want to be? If you share unhappy tales of an editor or teacher, please don’t include their names. Feel free, however, to name the editors you praise.
Advertisement
To me, “coaching” is quite a novel concept, one that will lead to a lot more productive communication between writer and editor, as well as better writing. While “coaching” may seem a bit more of a challenge and time consuming than “fixing,” realistically much more can be accomplished through “coaching.” Editors often assume that “coaching” will take more time out of their already hectic schedule, however this is not the case. Ultimately, “coaching” takes as much time as the editor puts into it. If an article has a deadline approaching, all the editor needs to do is take a minute or so to “coach” the writer into the right direction, but if the writer has a deadline further away, the editor can go more in-depth and take a longer amount of time to “coach” the writer. I believe “coaching” can be applied to all aspects of life where writing and editing come into play. To be honest, I would much rather an editor takes as little as a second to “coach” me about my writing than merely “fix” it. By “fixing” my writing instead of “coaching” me on it, my voice is more likely to disappear from the piece, but most importantly, I will not learn anything. When an editor takes the time to “coach” me, I am able to learn and grow as a writer instead of repeating the same mistakes that the editor simply “fixes.”
In my experience with editors, being one and working with a few, I have to agree with the book when they say that fixing and coaching go together, that you need one with the other.
I’ve worked under people who have “fixed” my stories without my knowledge and once I saw it in print, I was livid. There would be reworked sentences that didn’t fit with the tone I had set out with for the story, misplaced quotes and other such “fixes.” I was embarrassed to have my name in the by line.
By experiencing what I didn’t like about editors, I learned how to become a better editor. I knew that as an editor I needed to speak with the writers about what could possibly improve the story rather than just changing the words and rewriting it the way I wanted. On numerous occasions when editing other’s stories, I sat down with them and went over certain areas that could use a little more or less work. I took the time to ask questions about what point they were trying to make and come up with the best possible way to do that within the story. In the end, we would both be satisfied with the final outcome.
I have in the past had an editor that tried to be a coach. However, when it was crunch time, they became a fixer. Looking back on the situation I understand that my article was not stylistically ready for print, it did not have enough of the publication’s voice in it. Had the amount of sass and analogies necessary for this publication been discussed I believe I could have saved the editor time and in turn saved my voice in the article. I was often given constructive criticism about sources (try here, look into this). The comment I received every time was that it needed to fit the style of the magazine, unfortunately I failed to understand how much ‘style’ was needed. I do prefer a coaching editor because I often don’t know that I have my idea until someone has me talk about the story.
I am a double in English and magazine journalism and have had a variety of different professors, many of them have given me mixed messages about my work. Although most of them are “coaches,” I’ve had a few “fixers.” What I disliked most about the “fixers” is that they don’t provide reasons for their changes or ways for me to grow as a writer. I end up just following their changes without really knowing why and then I continue to make the same mistakes again and again. The “coaches” that I’ve had really encourage me to question my work. They force me to consider how I write. Blachford in J91 did a great job of really pushing my writing and helping develop my voice. She helped me consider why I write the way I write and how best to get my point across to the audience.
I don’t think I’m there yet, but after doing the reading, I think I’d like to think of myself as a “coach.” I really want to help others develop as writers and become confident with their skills.
I agree with Ashton. The reason why I don’t like editors who primarily ‘fix’ is because they don’t provide reasons for the changes. This doesn’t help writers grow or learn from their mistakes.
Question No. 2
As a senior in high school I was editor-in-chief of our student newspaper and throughout my four years working on staff I experienced numerous “coaches” and “fixers.” My newspaper advisor, Mrs. Barrett, was a coach. She would have a quick conference with every reporter throughout the story writing process. She would ask who we were thinking of interviewing, what observations we planned on getting, what questions we were going to ask and she would give us advice on what to do. At the end of the writing process, she made sure not to just tell us to fix this portion and delete that paragraph, instead like Clark and Fry recommend, she would give us suggestions and talk through the article with us, making sure to spark our creativity and let us come up with the ‘right’ way to write the story on our own.
I also experienced “fixers” such as the editor-in-chiefs my sophomore year. Whenever we gave her our stories she would return them to us with red markings everywhere and the “AWK” comments that Clark and Fry refer to on page 18. She would not talk to us about our stories; instead she would rewrite the entire thing for us, which did not help us become better writers.
When I was co-editor-in-chief I did a lot of editing for stories and looking back I would like to think that I was a “coach.” I knew how horrible it felt to have a peer tell you that your writing sucked so I try to have a conversation with my reporters and let them now why or why not something worked and what might make it better. Clark and Fry talk about how to be a good coach you also have to balance that with “fixing.” Whenever I edit stories or papers I try to use the ‘red pen’ but I also try to give them constructive tips and advice on how to make that particular piece better and how to improve their work in the future.
1.) Until I read these two chapters, my idea of editors was that their only job was to fact check and grammatically improve a writer’s article. I assumed all editors would assume that their writers would not need further “coaching” on their writing skills because they are now in the “real world of journalism” and not in school anymore. But after reading these two chapters, I’ve learned what coaching is, and have come to love the idea. I believe it is much more beneficial for editors to talk to their writers about how they could improve instead of changing the article on their own for a couple of reasons. First, it would save a bit of the editor’s time because he or she would just be giving advice instead of working on it themselves. And second, talking to writers about how they can improve would make it so their future articles wouldn’t have to be changed much. If they don’t understand their mistakes, then they can’t fix them in the future, thus causing the editor to take more and more time to fix the articles.
Coaching is worthwhile because of these reasons, and it’s realistic because it doesn’t take up too much time or effort for the editor. I haven’t had much experience with actual editors, just teachers who went through my articles. The couple of teachers that I’ve had were definetly coaches because they sat down and told us how to improve our articles, but that is what teachers are supposed to do.
Answer to question 2:
I intern for an entertainment magazine, and it seems like my editor was a coach/fixer hybrid. For instance, after the last article I emailed him, this is the response I got: “I altered the lead a bit. You need to think melodramatic and sometimes cheesy for [features leads]. You’ll see what I did.” We had a day until deadline, so I wish he’d sent it back with the suggestion, and let me try again.
That’s how it is at my internship! I will write a story, then it will be sent back to me “fixed.” They then tell me the reasons why they changed it and what I should work on for the next assignment after it’s been sent to print. Being an intern has its drawbacks.
I’ve received several different types of feedback in my experience with editors and teachers. Often times, I’m not told anything at all. It has been up to me to go back and read the new, published version of my story in order to see what was changed. These editors have definitely been ‘fixers’ rather than ‘coaches.’ I’ve had some teachers who have simply written notes in the margins of my stories. This was definitely a step up from receiving no feedback at all, but still didn’t help me a ton. Sections were circled, words were underlined and there were hardly legible notes scratched around the perimeter of the page. I have been fortunate enough to work with someone who I would consider a ‘coach’ rather than simply a ‘fixer.’ The communications director for the Drake athletics department I have been working with has set aside time in the past to meet with me in order to go over the stories I have written. He asks me questions about the content of the story, the interviews I conducted, gives some suggestions and allows me to make changes to my story to make it better overall. I think this is the type of editor this book is trying to make us become.
As an editor myself, I have done a little of both types of editing. Honestly, I would mainly consider myself a ‘fixer.’ My main goal is usually to get stories right so that we can get a paper out with as few problems as possible. I have met with some writers on occasion to help them improve their writing, but I think this is something I should try to start doing more often.
I have to say I’m somewhat of a fixer myself. I don’t want to be, and I try as hard as possible to coach, but in some cases, I don’t have the time. When you’re dealing with deadlines it gets really difficult.
However, when I do coach, and when I have been coached, I feel that the most effective way is through meeting in person. Yes, we should be able to understand writing, but everyone has their own way of saying something, so when you talk it out in person its easier to get the right meaning. Then you can ask them questions too. If they tell you something is wrong, you can ask why.
Like Elizabeth, I hope that I can become more of a coach than a fixer inthe future.
I feel like “coaching” writers as opposed to “fixing” their work is no question the better alternative. Having two majors that revolve around writing means that I have a lot of editing experience to draw on, and the classes and professors that have helped me the most helped foster my writing throughout the entire process rather than just assigning a grade. We all know that the world of professional journalism is centered around time constraints and deadlines, but I don’t think that means that coaching techniques used in college have to be forgone. I agree with Roy Peter Clark when he says that coaching writers can actually take less time if done correctly, because if a writer is learning that means they will require less “fixing” as the mature and grow in their craft.
I definitely agree with the fact that coaching can, in the long run helps. I know from a first hand experience that I two minutes is all it takes. In film/tv production we have a lot of time to spend on critiques but I think the most helpful are the constant little reminders that build someones learning experience.
I definitely think coaching is a novel concept. I agree with the author that coaching can improve the writer’s confidence, where fixing or other forms of editing may discourage the writer. When coaching you are posing questions to the writer to think about. The writer has the opportunity to ponder and make better decisions to improve their piece. The coaching editor is helping the writer in the long run to make better choices in their future pieces and thus setting them up for a successful career.
As a future teacher, I will absolutely be a coaching editor. When students ask me questions to their assignments or when writing papers, I will first ask what they think the answer is and use prompts to lead to deeper thinking on their end. I think coaching can also demonstrate that there is not always one answer to every situation, but rather multiple solutions that will hopefully foster creativity with every individual.
The first writing ‘coach’ I worked with is our own Rick Tapscott. The feedback that I received from him was quite different from that which I received for essays. He took the time to explain exactly why each change needed to be made, rather than simply mark them. Tapscott never just crosses out a word. He writes an explanation next to each marking. For example, the first thing I learned from him was to keep journalistic writing as short and simple as possible. He would write words like ‘redundant’ or ‘confusing’ on stories. By explaining each error, he not only helped me to understand journalism, but also he actually instilled the habits in me to keep my writing short and sweet. To this day, I hate the word ‘very’ in writing, because he taught us that it’s useless. Unless we are on a tight schedule, I always prefer a coaching editor.
I took a class taught by Tapscott as well, and I agree with your post. He helped me to make my writing more concise, which is something I sometimes struggle with as an English major.
I think Greg makes a really good point about how well Tapscott “coaches.” I think a big reason he is able to be such a good “coach” is because of how long he was in the industry. I really valued his expertise, even though I don’t love news-style writing.
Recently, I’ve received great coaching from Professor Kathy Barnes. Our stories weren’t on a tight deadline, which allowed for many ‘coaching’ sessions. I was able to talk to Barnes often about my paper. I believe her advice has made me a better writer in the long run. If she had stuck to ‘fixing’ our drafts, I wouldn’t be as successful. I’ve been in other situations where my final pieces are ‘fixed’ a lot and this in no way benefits me as a writer. ‘Fixing’ does not allow for writers to understand why things were changed, but perhaps with coaching, ‘fixing’ could be decreased in drafts. I believe that coaching is worthwhile and builds a healthier relationship between the writer and editor.
I’ll go with question 2. I’ve definitely had more “fixers” than “coaches” edit things that I’ve written. When my writings were simply corrected it was often hard to tell how I should have done it instead.
In a high school English class I had an excellent “coaching” experience. Each person in the class was assigned a 15 page research paper and after our rough drafts were handed in our teacher read them all and then sat down with each of us for not more than 5 minutes to discuss what could be better. This helped me tremendously and her suggestions stuck with me.
As I edit other people’s work I try to “coach” more than “fix.” Generally it’s in a class setting or with a friend so I have the time to give helpful input and explain my ideas.
I agree with Greg. When you have an editor that fixes your writing, you don’t learn anything. I was actually talking about this same topic in J98, and another student mentioned that one of his past writing teachers would just cross parts out and write “wrong,” “not good,” etc. He said because no one ever explained the errors to him, he continued to make the same mistakes over and over again. If it were a sport, it would be like a coach simply taking over when you miss a shot, and doing it for you. The end product might be what you want, but it’s someone else’s work.
I found this especially intriguing because I now realize that I used to “fix” not “coach” when I edited. In a way, fixing someone’s writing is kind of arrogant. It puts words in their mouth rather than letting them discover a way to change what they’ve written.
I think it really depends on the situation. If you’re short on time, you may need to go with a fixing method just to get it done as soon as possible.
I think the best coach I had at Drake was Blachford. She did a great job of encouraging me, by questioning how and why I was writing something. I think the most important part of being a coach is being able to push your writers out of their comfort zones to discover new things about themselves. Even if she was “fixing” something, she would tell me why, and I understood how to continually make my writing better. I prefer the “coach,” because when I have a “fixer” I don’t understand why it needs to be fixed and then I continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. I like to think of myself as a “coach,” but I’m sure I have plenty to learn. Before reading chapters 1 and 2, I hadn’t realized that there was a difference. I really want to help others enhance their writing.
I think Ashton makes a good point when he says “when I have a fixer I don’t understand why it needs to be fixed and then I continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.” This is usually how to went for me when I had “fixers” as teachers. Getting a paper back covered in red ink is intimidating, and most of the time I couldn’t even read the teacher’s handwriting about what I did wrong. Overall, coaching helps both the editor and writer a lot more than fixing does.
I agree! Blachford does a great job of asking questions, rather than telling us what we should write. It gets you thinking differently.
In my experiences as a writing and journalism student, I have had teachers that were “coaches,” and teachers that were “fixers.” I strongly preferred the feedback from those that were “coaches” because their suggestions always seemed more helpful. A certain teacher I had last semester gave feedback that really surprised me because it actually made me think, whereas other teachers’ comments were more simple. For example, instead of just noting specific parts of my writing that she thought were either good or bad, this teacher would tell me why exactly she had those opinions and suggested ways I could further improve.
I haven’t done much editing before, but I would like to be a coaching editor. It seems that coaching better allows for keeping the writers’ voice and original ideas. A detail I found interesting from the reading was that coaching should only take about four minutes, and that it should be in a conversation format. I like the idea that coaching allows writers to be more independent, but that could be because I hope to be a writer someday and I value my independence.
One of my first experiences with an editor was for my high school yearbook staff. She was my teacher, adviser and editor all four years of my high school experience. Although we were constantly under strict deadlines, she insisted on meeting with each of us individually to go over our stories together. She would sit us down in her office and read our stories out loud, writing down changes and explaining them as she went. She’d also stop and ask us questions to get us thinking and to help us become better self editors. I always left her office feeling more confident about my story and ready to tackle it a second time because I understood what was expected of me. In my opinion, nothing is more overwhelming than getting a story back covered in red marks with little to no explanation. I appreciated the way my yearbook editor handled the editing process. She always said that letting us hear our writing and having edits explained to us would allow us to learn more during the meeting and have less amount of edits later. I agree with my yearbook editor and the book when they say that a few minutes of coaching can save you even more minutes of fixing.
So personally I have never worked on a newspaper or magazine. My background is in Television and Education. This being said I have never had an editor, however, I have had producers and directors who have similar job. I have also been a producer and director which gives me the experience of being an editor. This being so I can say from a first hand experience that “coaching” is hands down the best method. As a teacher and a producer I have seen how well people react to positive critiques. In the long run it is the constant feedback and the constant help that builds a better working environment.
Very much agreed! I’ve worked with people who would much rather put other people’s work down than give it a compliment, and that created conflicts in the newsroom. It’s always better to use constructive criticism.
My first journalistic experience was my senior year of high school as a member of the yearbook staff. It was an unfortunate situation because, although it was my first year on the staff, I had more editing experience than our primary copy editor. The articles that I submitted were never talked about and were often returned as clean as they were handed in.
So, I was surprised by the corrections I received in my first real journalism writing class (JMC 054). I had no experience with AP Style so my mechanics were hardly up to par, but my leads and quote choices were often praised. However, communication between my editor and I, beyond scrawled notes in the margins of my articles, was nonexistent. Because of this, I would probably classify her as a “fixer.” Her notes were often short and nonspecific, such as “good lead” and “move up.” While helpful at first, I feel like my writing could have progressed much further with verbal “coaching.”
As someone who primarily thinks out loud, often asking a lot of questions as I edit, I would consider myself more of a “coach.” However, I have a lot of room to improve my editing ability.
Looking at editors as “coaches” is a lot less intimidating for a writer, especially if they are ‘rookies’ to journalism and writing for publications. I’ve worked with both kinds of editors. This fall I was writing an online story for a student-run magazine when my editor told me that no one would really be interested in reading my story because she felt that it was too “science-y” and that I should write about something else – even though they assigned that specific topic to me. Having been confident in my story, I was dumbfounded. I asked for an explanation and ways to improve, but was instead told to start again from scratch. In that case I went to the editor-in-chief who helped me work it out and get my story published. I’m sure it’s challenging for younger editors to be coaches when they haven’t been in the business long, which can become a problem. For those more experienced, I think they have to act as coaches. Instead of sending them off with a draft drenched in red ink and the feeling of failure, encourage them. Help them to see that they have the ability to write a great story. Even if it takes a little time to show them how to improve, editors are helping to craft strong writers for the long-run.
I can definitely relate to this! I learned a great deal in my first journalism writing course. The key concepts that stick with me today are to be short and sweet and not be redundant!
In response to @gregboal’s post, I agree that I think it is very helpful when teachers/editors actually write ways to improve. I think it is even more beneficial, though, to be able to actually talk and discuss how a story can be better. I know that time is typically a factor and, although it would be ideal, the ability to talk about each story is somewhat unrealistic, but I know from experience that it is definitely helpful if possible.