This blog is primarily for media aspirants as well as young journalists. My aim is to provide links to articles that will enhance their understanding of the media and help them to improve their writing skills, broaden their horizons, and expand their worldview. My hope is that The Reading Room will also help them to become good media professionals.
Here, in an excerpt from the interview, is a delightful exchange between the couple:
Rajdeep and Sagarika met for the first time in 1986 in Jamshedpur, now in Jharkhand, where they had gone for an interview with Russi Mody, former chairman of Tata Steel, for The Rhodes Scholarships. “She got it. I did not. I am still trying to get back,” says Rajdeep. Sagarika says: “In those days, Rajdeep was extremely laid-back; in fact, he was so laid-back that he was horizontal. I remember when the results were being announced he was sleeping somewhere up there in his room.” Rajdeep tries to defend himself but ends up muttering while Sagarika ploughs on: “I remember thinking to myself ‘Does this guy really care about the scholarship?’” But now, Sagarika says, “Rajdeep is a workaholic, a newsaholic, a journoaholic. Thank God he is not an alcoholic.” Sagarika feels that as editor-in-chief, Rajdeep should not be taking so many decisions. “He is obsessed with what’s on the ticker, the top bands. This way the people who are doing the work are not empowered because they keep trying to second-guess him. In fact, my team is obsessed with Rajdeep. I delegate much more and believe if you empower people, things run on their own and you get fresher ideas.” Rajdeep interjects: “I have a resolution — to leave office by 6pm on Friday. I have left office early for the last few Fridays.”
POWER COUPLE: Sagarika and Rajdeep photographed for Mint by Priyanka Parashar
Read the feature by Seema Chowdhry in its entirety here: "Airing both sides".
That is the question posed in a thought-provoking column by senior journalist Kelly McBride on Poynter. She wrote her piece after freelance journalist Nate Thayer wrote on his blog about how The Atlantic magazine tried to get him to write for free.
McBride says the internet has totally messed up a simple pay scale. She explains:
Back in the day, freelancers got paid roughly by the word. Sometimes it was as low as 10 cents a word. Everyone was shooting for $1 a word, and some people got more than that. Hotshots might get $10,000-$20,000 for a fabulous magazine piece. There was a lot of variation, but there was also a standard rate that people were shooting for.
Now, trying to pin down how much a writer should be paid is an impossible task. It’s simply unknowable.
Here are seven helpful tips provided by Mark Nichol, editor of the Daily Writing Tips blog:
Look up the definition of an unfamiliar word and be sure you understand the meaning before you use it.
Search a thesaurus or a synonym finder for the precise meaning, taking care to notice the different connotations of similar words.
Keep your writing clear and coherent, and avoid pretentious or overly formal language.
Select the strongest nouns and verbs before you select adjectives and adverbs.
Seek opportunities to use repetition for rhetorical effect while, at the same time, you watch for careless redundancy.
Read your draft aloud to help you refine grammar and usage. If something doesn’t sound right to you, it probably doesn’t read right to your audience, either.
Ask someone else to read your writing and critique it.
The number of poorly written emails, resumes and blog posts I come across each month is both staggering and saddening. Their grammar is awful. There are dozens of misspellings. Language is much wordier or more complex than necessary. Some things I read literally make no sense at all to me.
DAVE KERPEN
I can imagine my students thinking, "There goes RP Sir, riding his favourite hobby horse again." But those thoughts up there have been expressed by an American CEO, no less, who is also a New York Times best-selling author and keynote speaker.
Dave Kerpen's post on why you should become a better writer if you want to be taken seriously first came to my notice when I checked my LinkedIn account the other day. In the same way his arguments resonated with me, they appear to have struck a chord with many others because this post, as of today, has been tweeted about by more than 3,000 people, shared on LinkedIn by more than 18,000 users, and has attracted more than 8,000 "likes".
Kerpen does not talk down to his readers, as is obvious from a point he makes in his post:
It's not just you who must become a better writer — it’s all of us. I'll be the first to admit, I too have had to learn to become a better writer.
Kerpen then elaborates on the methods he used to become a better writer over the past several years. Here are the bullet points:
Practice, practice, practice.
Say it out loud.
Make it more concise.
Work on your headlines.
Read.
You can see for yourself what he has to say about each of the first four points here. Since I consider "good" reading to be essential for good writing, here's Kerpen's last point in full:
Besides practicing writing, the number one way to improve your writing skills is to read great work. I read at least one book per month, at least 20 articles per week, and countless tweets, Facebook posts and emails per day. I know we all have limited time, but truly the best way to become a better writer is to become a better reader [emphasis mine].
I now "follow" Dave Kerpen on LinkedIn. You may want to do the same.
EXTERNAL READING: Simon Kuper, writing in the Financial Times, argues that texts, blogs, e-mails, and Facebook posts are affecting other kinds of writing — mostly for the good. Read his column here: "How social media improved writing". I am obliged to Apar Dham (Class of 2011) for the alert. Apar wrote in an e-mail to me today: "Some food for thought at the beginning of the week? I remember you always cringing at the language youngsters use for texting, Twitter, Facebook, etc. So I thought that this article might make for some interesting reading." It sure did, Apar!
I admire Amish (who prefers to go by one name) and Chetan Bhagat. Not for the quality of the writing in their books, but for writing books that have got young people reading them and enjoying them and starting conversations about them.
Just today I met five young women who had come to Bangalore from Coimbatore to write the Commits entrance exam — in the essay section of the test, all of them chose to write about either The Immortals of Meluha or The Secret of the Nagas, the phenomenally popular books that form part of Amish's Shiva trilogy. Each student is now looking forward to reading the final installment, The Oath of the Vayuputras, which Commits alumnus Harish Agarwal (Class of 2004) has already read and proclaimed, on Facebook, to be a must-read. "What an awesome one-night stand it was," he wrote earlier today.
Amish, who was also in the news recently for receiving an advance of Rs. 5 crore for his next series, may not score a lot of points with purists or with those who prefer their books to be a little more, let's say, literary. But he has created, along with Chetan Bhagat, a new market for fiction and fully deserves his success.
GOD IS IN THE DETAILS: AMISH IS AT THE TOP OF HIS GAME TODAY.
Tehelka last monthpublished a long interview-based feature on Amish; he is also the subject of the cover story in Mint Lounge today.
Here is Sunaina Kumar writing in Tehelka about Amish's readership:
Amish found a gap between the scholarly versions of the epics, the middlebrow (Devdutt Pattanaik) and the square (Ashok Banker), writing in cliffhangers, making up plot details, including battle scenes, a tender love story, and a hero who seems to have walked right out of American popular culture. Amish’s racy, slangy prose is not above the sort of jarring scene in which Shiva says things like, “Dammit Sati! I can’t figure it out.”
Later Kumar discusses his writing:
[In] the hands of a more able craftsman, the narrative would have soared. There are ideas in Amish’s novels — new concepts, action underpinned by philosophy, relatively radical notions of a caste-less society (he has dropped Tripathi, his caste-based surname) in which women lead from the front, and a clever twist to the good-versus-evil debate. Many of his ideas deserve to be expressed better. It is Amish’s writing that lets down his storytelling, his ideas. For instance, his characters talk in a peculiar, pedestrian English, mixing generous helpings of slang with words like “gargantuan” and “plethora”. Or they talk in all caps that end in a blur of exclamation points.
Amish’s answer to critics, Kumar says, is that he writes in a style that does not talk down to a vast majority of Indians:
“I write the way I think ya… I believe in one thing ki boss I am gonna be who I am. Some people will like it, some people will not, that’s cool, but I am clear I am not going to change.”
How can you not want to know more about this unassuming millionaire author? Read the feature in its entirety here: "The Pied Piper of Meluha".
Now here's Mayank Austen Soofi writing in Mint Lounge after speaking to the author himself and also to readers and publishers in an attempt to understand the reasons for Amish's remarkable popularity:
Some novelists at least have moved into the category of fast-moving consumer goods.
And here are some relevant quotes from the article:
“The series gives me a different take on Shiva, and Amish’s writing is
wonderfully colloquial. His Shiva uses everyday words like ‘dammit’ and
‘bloody’!”—Vanita Ganesh, a college student in Gurgaon, who has already finished reading all 565 pages of The Oath of the Vayuputras
“Amish’s story is beautifully crafted and written in the language of the common man, and that’s why everyone is reading him.” —Amish's literary agent Anuj Bahri, the owner of the landmark Bahri Sons Booksellers in Khan Market, New Delhi
“His books don’t interest me much, neither the content nor the style.... I like to be challenged and surprised by the books I read. Buying them is an effort to know more about spaces, places, ideas and people which/whom I know little about. We are anyway surrounded by the mundane, and too much of our own language.” —Arpita Das, publisher of the Delhi-based Yoda Press
PS:I have ordered The Shiva Trilogy from Flipkart to see for myself what the hoo-ha is all about. Afterwards, all three books will be placed in the Commits library for the reading pleasure of our students. UPDATE (March 24, 2013): Commitscion Ankita Sengupta (Class of 2013), who now works with Deccan Herald in Bangalore, interviewed Amish for the newspaper's website when he visited the city earlier this week. You can watch it on YouTube:
Shereen Bhan has been a CNBC anchor for more than a dozen years now and she has a host of journalistic achievements to her credit. In an interview with Rediff.com, Bhan has discussed a few aspects of life as a television journalist, which TV hopefuls will find enlightening. (This interview was conducted in 2007. No matter. Given the fierce competition among our news channels and the consequent unrelenting pressure on television journalists, what she has to say is even more applicable today.)
If you're not extremely ambitious and if you're not willing to work extremely hard, any other skills you have may prove to be unhelpful in the rush-hour-at-all-times world of television news. Given below are excerpts from the interview, chosen especially to give television journalism aspirants an insight into what it means to work with one of India's top TV news organisations.
What is a typical workday like?
My day start at 9 am and wraps at 11 pm — so it is long! Mornings are spent with reporters as I head the bureau. Some days I have interviews and events. Afternoons are spent editing scripts and planning. Later, 8 pm to 10.30 pm is time spent in the studio for CNN-IBN and CNBC.
You are one of the most recognised faces of Indian news today, what do you credit for your success?
Hard work, commitment and perseverance. I have very rarely said no. I have worked for almost every channel on Network 18. CNBC, Awaaz, CNN-IBN, South Asia World. I have tried to be as versatile as possible. So business, politics, feature programming, I have done it all. I have also stayed away from positioning myself only as an anchor. I have always produced my shows and I will continue to do so. I have also tried to be a nurturing team leader and take people along, which help our shows look better.
That one needs to be outgoing for a career in television goes without saying. What are the other personality traits you think an aspiring TV journalist needs?
The ability to handle pressure is a must. It is a tough job, both physically and mentally taxing. You have to be on your feet for long hours and mentally alert every second. Operating in a live environment means reacting to news as it breaks, making sense of it in a few seconds and adding value in a couple of minutes.
Good communication skills, comprehensive knowledge of current affairs, writing are important as well. What advice would you have for aspiring TV journalists?
Don't do it for the glamour. There is nothing glamorous about it. A large chunk of a TV journalist's job is donkey's work. Standing around for hours to get a 20-second sound bite is about perseverance not glamour.
Be prepared to say goodbye to your social life and get ready to be on call 24x7. Ignite a fire inside you, not just to do big stories and interviews but also to do good quality work, that's fair and honest consistently. What do you think is the most common mistake newcomers make? What advice do you have to give them in this regard?
Wanting to taste success without doing the time — you have to be patient. You have to get your hands dirty. Don't box yourself into roles and responsibilities. Learn to multi-task. Learn to work in a team. TV is all about teamwork.
And so does Poynter guru Roy Peter Clark, whose post on the subject I re-discovered when I was going through old e-mails.
Clark is a superlative journalist who writes with felicity and fluency. And he's extremely well-read to boot. Read the post I'm referring to, as well as his other columns on the Poynter website, to better appreciate what I'm talking about.
But to return to "Charles's book" vs "Charles' book". Here's an excerpt from Clark's post:
Professor Strunk tells us to add apostrophe plus s no matter the final consonant in the noun and cites as examples “Charles’s friend” and “Burns’s poems.”
This makes great sense to me because it echoes the way we would speak the word aloud. So it puzzles me that the “Associated Press Stylebook,” an influential work for journalists, argues that a simple apostrophe suffices after proper nouns ending in s, as in Agnes’ book and Jules’ seat. I don’t know about you, but when I read those aloud, the missing s hurts my ears, and on the page it hurts my eyes. I would say Agnes’s book and Jules’s seat.
Read the post in its entirety here and you will no longer wonder about the so-called extra s in Bridget Jones's Diary.
Ilya Pozin, a contributor to the "Entrepreneurs" section on the Forbes website, has posed two important questions in a recent post:
On sites like Twitter and Facebook, do all old-school means of social etiquette get thrown out the window? Or do most people not even know what classifies as proper social etiquette to begin with?
In turn, he lists 12 questions that he says you must ask yourself before you hit "post" on Facebook:
Should I target a specific audience with this message?
Will anyone really care about this content besides me? Will I offend anyone with this content? If so, who? Does it matter? Is this appropriate for a social portal, or would it best be communicated another way? How many times have I already posted something today? (More than three can be excessive.) Did I spell check? Will I be okay with absolutely anyone seeing this? Is this post too vague? Will everyone understand what I’m saying? Am I using this as an emotional dumping ground? If so, why? Is a different outlet better for these purposes? Am I using too many abbreviations in this post and starting to sound like a teenager? Is this reactive communication or is it well thought-out? Is this really something I want to share, or is it just me venting?
Saumya Iyer is a First Year student at Commits. She is keen to be a journalist, but like many of her peers she is not a "reader". We have had many discussions about this, and yesterday, at my request, she wrote a blog post on the subject. "It’s kind of ironic you see, I want to be a journalist but I don’t read," she writes in the post. "It does sound strange for someone who wants to be in journalism but I guess that has never bothered me too much."
She also addresses the issue of why young people have no interest in reading:
As to why my peers don’t read newspapers and books and all that, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say, maybe they just don’t want to. Period. I’m guessing they have other more interesting or not so interesting things in life to busy themselves with. They are fresh out of their teens, they don’t want to take on the burdens of this world just yet, they want to remain as ignorant as possible for as long as they can.
--- There is also what I consider a "must-read" post —Why you must read— the link to which I had sent long ago to Saumya as well as to her classmates.
As I wrote to Saumya yesterday, thanks to her post I am a little closer now to understanding why young people don't read. But that does not mean I am any less baffled. Is there a way to fix this?
Thank you, Saumya, for giving me permission to publish this on my blog.
UPDATE (March 21, 2013): "I love books, and anything else I can read. I read everything and anything that I can find. I will never stop learning. But I also know that I can’t read as much as I would like to read. There is simply not enough time NOW. I have to keep track of so many things, at the same time that it essentially becomes an exercise in prioritising. And unfortunately books and reading takes a backseat. And I think I know why." — MAITREYA J.A., Saumya Iyer's classmate and co-editor of The Chronicle, the Commits newspaper. Read his blog post on the subject in its entirety here.
"Men and women succeed because they take pains to succeed."
That is how Amelia E. Barr's first rule for success begins.
Her second rule includes this terrific insight: One of the great secrets of success is "pegging away".
Barr's third rule echoes the voice of experience:
No opposition must be taken to heart.
The fourth rule begins thus:
A fatal mistake is to imagine that success is some stroke of luck.
At the end of the fifth rule, we learn how to adapt a well-known truism to suit our aims:
"Make the iron hot by striking it."
In the sixth rule, Barr gives us a truism of her own:
Mediocrity is always in a rush; but whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing with consideration.
In Barr's seventh rule, we learn of her distaste for "slatternly work":
I would distrust even the spiritual life of one whose methods and work were dirty, untidy, and without clearness and order.
The eighth rule offers writerly advice:
Literature is no accident. She is a mistress who demands the whole heart, the whole intellect, and the whole time of a devotee.
And the ninth, and last, rule lays emphasis on attitude. This is how it begins:
Don't fail through defects of temper and over-sensitiveness at moments of trial.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to know that Amelia E. Barr wrote down her rules for success in an essay for a book that was published more than a hundred years ago. I say it shouldn't come as a surprise because the formula for success, at least the sensible version offered above, doesn't have to change with time. What worked for Barr in the last century will work for you in this century.
To know more about Amelia E. Barr and to read up on the details of her rules for success (and also to glean other secrets of success), visit this post by my favourite blogger, Maria Popova: "9 Rules for Success by British Novelist Amelia E. Barr, 1901".
I have more than 20 years' experience (1981 to 2003) as a journalist in India and Dubai, specializing in selecting and editing news reports and features. From 2003 to 2019, I taught journalism and writing skills to master’s students at Commits, a media college in Bangalore.
I joined Cactus Communications ("Serving Science Worldwide") as a copyediting freelancer on October 1, 2019. From the very beginning, I have enjoyed the challenge of working on a new assignment each day. I like to think of every article as a daily crossword puzzle that I need to solve by examining the clues closely. And, finally, when I submit the article that I have tended, I like to think, with love and care, I feel deeply satisfied.
