English for International Journalists

Mike Gandon, Heather Purdey, Heather Purdey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136500831
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

English for International Journalists is a clear and engaging step-by-step guide for non-native speakers using English in journalism across all forms of media. In-depth language analysis is provided in the specialised context of journalism, as well as a comprehensive approach to the rules and guidelines necessary for avoiding the pitfalls and errors that undermine accuracy and clarity.

The book, written by Mike Gandon and edited by Heather Purdey, covers a broad range of vital subjects, including:

• Making contact

• Interviewing

• Grammar and journalistic writing

• Sensitive issues

• The language of argument

• The language of impartial and accurate reporting

• Bloggers and broadcasters

• Reporting economy, health and the environment.

The book is closely supported by online resources concentrating on the spoken word, intonation and pronunciation, and also features an expansive range of exercises and tests, suitable for self-study or to be set as coursework. English for International Journalists presents readers with the essential tools for producing journalism in English today.

1 Introduction

 

 

 

For a journalist, words are crucial. They can make the difference between clarity and confusion, understanding and bewilderment, and, ultimately, between accuracy and falsehood. It is not surprising, therefore, that journalists for whom English is not the first language can experience the equivalent of culture shock. They hear how English is used in a newsroom or see how it is used in a story and discover that what is common practice and acceptable in their own language is not always so in English.

For example, some of our Chinese students have told us that in their language the imperative structure Give me this is routinely used when making requests, albeit softened by use of the word please. It is not considered rude. This is in stark contrast to the concept of polite requests in English, which are often introduced with questions beginning could you or can you, followed by the main body of the request. However, to Chinese speakers, such an indirect approach is seen as possibly casting doubt on the willingness of the person receiving the request to carry it out. It could therefore cause offence and is avoided. (Lee-Wong, 1994: 508). This is just one example of how the Chinese journalist working in English has to think in a different way and has to master and implement a new set of language rules to do this.

At the same time, the language of journalism reflects the culture and conventions of the society from which it springs. On a political level, it can communicate the editorial policy of a particular newspaper or broadcaster: ‘Get Britain out of Europe’ was the clear and direct message to the British government conveyed in a front-page headline in the Daily Express on the day it declared itself ‘to be the first national newspaper to call for Britain to leave the European Union’ (Daily Express, 25 November 2010). It reflects the degree of freedom with which newspapers are able to operate in English-speaking democracies. But in countries where freedom of the press cannot be taken for granted, the language of journalism may be more cautious. For example, how forthright the phrasing of a challenging question to a government minister will be may well be determined by a number of considerations, not least the journalist's regard for personal safety. Not surprisingly, therefore, journalists from countries where democratic freedom is limited can initially find the directness of some of the English used in journalism disconcerting.

Perhaps it is because journalists in English-speaking countries are, on the whole, able to operate with comparative freedom, without government interference, in effect to challenge the status quo, that they are able to use direct, forthright language in challenging those in authority. Students of journalism from China can find this lack of constraint difficult to grasp. In the words of Heng: ‘In China, you have to paraphrase the argument of your interviewee first; only then can you ask your challenging question.’ And there are similar echoes in the Arab world. According to Noha from Egypt, the challenging question must have a polite introduction along the lines of ‘but if you would allow me to ask you’ or ‘but if I may ask you’. And the experience of Adwan from Gaza is that ‘You can't just jump in with a question and attack. You have to be respectful and cannot interrupt at any stage.’ Students from Russia can also identify with this experience. For Liza, challenging questions in English come across as ‘aggressive’. And according to Polina, the deference required on the part of journalists in Russia extends to routine contact with press officers. She says: ‘If you contact the press officer of a large company, you cannot talk informally. You have to show a degree of respect, otherwise you won't get an interview.’ That is not to say that dealings with press officers in English-speaking countries should not be worded respectfully. But clearly in Russia they are taken a step further. Indeed, according to Liza: ‘If you translate the Russian formula for making requests into English, it sounds overly polite, even ridiculous.’

The culture shock also applies to the writing and receiving of emails. Working as a journalist in Russia, Liza is used to composing and receiving very formally worded emails. Little surprise, then, that, working as a journalist in Britain, she is taken aback by terse and informal replies to her emails, along the lines of ‘Thanks for your email. I'll look into it and get back to you.’ The highly deferential email is also the norm in Arabic, according to Noha from Egypt. She says the standard email will often begin with words such as ‘Dear Sir, after my warmest regards, I was hoping that I was not intruding on your time and would be very appreciative if you would decide to speak to me […]’ before getting to the detail of the request. She was made to realise that to write in that style in English would appear pretentious. But, working in English, she too was a little shocked by the tone of some of the replies to her emails which she describes as ‘basic, to the point and having no words of beauty’.

In addition, Arab speakers often have difficulty in coming to terms with the economy of words that is a hallmark of good writing in English. The advice of George Orwell to ‘never use a long word when a short one will do’ and that ‘if it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out’ (Orwell, 1946) has long been ringing in the ears of sub-editors in newsrooms throughout the Englishspeaking world. However, it is advice that is not instinctively easy to follow for journalists who are used to writing in Arabic. As Noha puts it: ‘Arabic journalism is very descriptive. What we write in English in 20 words we would write in Arabic in 60.’ And Adwan says that writing in Arabic follows a mindset which asks: ‘Why write in just two or three words what can be written in three or even four words?’

Journalism is framed by a code and set of rules. The need for accuracy is paramount. Language has to be correspondingly precise and unambiguous. It must also have style. And it must be appropriate to the medium, be it print, broadcast or on a blog.

This book is not an introduction to the English language. Readers should already have a good standard of English. Nor is it an introduction to writing journalism. Readers may already be working as journalists or at least have some knowledge and understanding of how to write a news story.

It is a book for those who are working or hoping to work in English as journalists but may not understand the subtleties of the language. It is aimed at refining English for journalism, looking at the everyday language journalists use, whether they are working on stories, following up leads or just trying to encourage a source to talk. It is based on 15 years of training student journalists from across the world, some of whom have contributed their own experiences in order to help others who may have the same frustrations as they did – namely, of having not-quite-good-enough English to work as a journalist for an English-speaking publication.

We hope that this book may go some way to informing you about the subtleties and nuances of journalistic English and will stand you in good stead for your future career.

References

Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994) ‘Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite – observations from Chinese’, Pragmatics, vol 4, no 4, p. 508

Orwell, G. (1946) ‘Politics and the English Language’, Horizon, vol 13, no 76, pp. 252–65

2 Making contact

As a journalist working in an English-speaking environment, one of the first tasks that you will face is making contact with people and organisations that are relevant to your brief. On any particular topic or story, you may be trying to find the right person to talk to, setting up interviews or simply requesting information. Whatever the case, your approach must be professional, polite, and the language you use appropriate. Very often, the initial contact that you will make with organisations, official bodies and government departments is with a call to the press office. Unless you have direct access to a specific person, it is through a press officer that requests for interviews and information are most frequently channelled.

An approach can be made in two ways, either by phone or by email. It may well be the case that you will be asked at some stage to email your request. But it is always advisable for you to kick-start¹ the process with a phone call to establish a rapport with the organisation you are dealing with. Whatever the approach, you should be using the language of polite requests.

Language used to make polite requests should be simple and direct. The degree of informality will depend upon the nature of the request and to whom it is addressed.

Contact by phone

In practice, when you call any given organisation, the route to the individual with whom you want to speak will often begin with the switchboard operator.

Look at the following examples of how to talk to the switchboard operator to see which of them uses the language of polite requests and is likely to prove successful. You will find an analysis after each example.

Put me through to the press office.

Analysis: Not a good start. Direct commands using the imperative are ruled out on the grounds that they are abrupt and can sound rude. And you do not want to fall at the first hurdle. The language you use can be the difference between a switchboard operator saying ‘The person you want to speak to is not available, good-bye’ and the more promising ‘I'm afraid the person you want to speak to is not answering the phone but let me try another extension for you.’

Will you put me through to the press office?

Analysis: Not much better. It still sounds more like a command than a question, and is too overbearing.

Put me through to the press office, please.

Or:

Please put me through to the press office.

Or:

Will you please put me through to the press office?

Analysis: Better. By putting the word please at the beginning, middle or end of the sentence you are introducing a degree of politeness into your request. But even so, all three requests are still demanding in tone. We are getting there, but there is some way to go:

Hello, can you put me through to the press office, please?

Or:

Hello, could you put me through to the press office, please?

Or:

Hello, would you put me through to the press office, please?

Analysis: This is more like it. An appropri...