saving ink

Maybe because I never went to journalism school (or took a single journalism class, for that matter), I have resisted to a fault using journo-slang such as “angle”, “lead”, “advertorial”, etc . But while those terms are simply annoying and usually unnecessary, there is one piece of journalese that I absolutely cannot stand: “copy”.

Copy |ˈkäpē| noun ( pl. copies):

1. the words of an article, news story, or book
2. any broadcast writing, including commercials
3. any written material intended for publication, including advertising

What’s wrong with “article” or “story”, or if you must speak more technically, then “text”? ”Copy” sounds cheap. It sounds like something produced in a factory, tailored to the specifications of the customer.

“I’ll have 1,200 pieces of copy, and two crates of by-lines, please. And throw in an advertorial on the side, will ya?”

Perhaps it’s just my lack of proper initiation into journalism. But perhaps this is a case of semantics dictating attitudes. I mean, have you ever heard Shakespeare or Joyce described as “great copy”? Did Hunter Thompson produce “killer copy” for the National Observer while tripping balls on LSD? No, he told amazing stories, submitted mind-blowing articles full of engaging sentences constructed from perfectly chosen words.

So it’s no wonder that other than occasional long-form gems found in a few select papers, the majority of mainstream journalism has become cheap, AP-style copy. Perhaps if journalists stopped thinking of themselves as cogs in a machine producing copy and began writing stories, the public might want to read them again.

But what do I know? I never went to journalism school…