Responses from publications, too much to expect?

[Saracen]

Nice success story.

'Source' was sloppy terminology. What I mean is, you have published an article by x person saying this thing, can you confirm what it refers to.

Um trying to come up with a good example. Let's say.. a regular columnist in the Lower Buntingworth Church Newsletter writes 'The Organist swore, using x words, during our recent choral concert.'
Say part of the concert was video'd and we the congregation have all seen it. The rest has been seen only by the newsletter editor. We have seen an incident that may well be the one referred to in the article, & the consensus there is that the organist has been misheard & is now being represented in the newsletter. Can you the editor confirm that the incident referred to by your columnist is the one we have seen. If it isn't, kindly ask your columnist to specify what alternative incident it was and check the footage accordingly. Either way they should be able if not willing to give a concrete answer.

Near enough if not as to particulars.

Okay, I think I'm beginning go get it.

So, you think a story is inaccurate, and perhaps unrepresentative, and possibly even defamatory, but the details are vague enough that it's not entirely clear which incident/evidence it's based on? So you're after clarification?

I can see a potential gotcha or two in there.

Firstly, given the nature of the incident, the editor may have referred it to a legal team. Hence, possibly, no answer.

Secondly, depending on the professionalism of the publication, it may have been written in such a way as to stay on the right side of defamation .... just. So ANY further comment/clarification MIGHT push it over the edge. Hence, possibly, the lack of reply. Third, they're hoping you just go away if they ignore you.

All told, it's still very hard to second-guess. But it sounds to me as if the editor is indeed the right person to approach. If emails don't work, try an old-fashioned letter. An email may simply being lost in the deluge.

Just be aware, editors tend to be pretty busy people, and for print editors, it can get absolutely manic when approaching the deadline to get copy to printers. Miss it, and you risk missing your slot, and getting no edition that week/month. Then, there's holidays, etc, and we're currently in the middle of peak season.

[sammyc]

Thanks for all your input. I will approach the editor next and report back (no-one need hold their breath for that bit).

[Disturbedguy]

It's a mix, these days, DG, but the story above referred to, would you believe .... computer software.

Ahh cool!

I for some reason assumed it was hardware related..not sure why..I remember once being told that I should look at doing technical guide writing as I was apparently quite good at it...never really followed it up though.

Thanks for answering

[Saracen]

Ahh cool!

I for some reason assumed it was hardware related..not sure why..I remember once being told that I should look at doing technical guide writing as I was apparently quite good at it...never really followed it up though.

Thanks for answering

I've done a lot, and I mean a LOT of hardware too, and quite a bit that's not computer-related too. Once you get in, you start to make contacts, and you never know what it might lead to.

I would say that technical guide writing and review/feature writing are different animals, though, requiring different but overlapping skill sets.

The attitude I always took to reviews was that it's a bit like, or at least has similarities to, writing a very short book. First job? Get the reader's interest. So the first para or two can be critical. The last bit has to be a conclusion, but that's almost as much about knowing your typical reader, which varies from one publication to another, as the product.

And in-between, you need to have studied and tested the product, come up with a list of points to make, put them into both some sort of order and nearly always a priority, because space constraints nearly always mean you can't cover everything you'd like to, and certainly not in the depth you'd like to.

Then, you have to assemble the bits, the hook, the meat and the conclusion, into something that is both easy to read, and yet, critically, useful and informative.

All that requires that, first, you know your subject, and second, can write in such a way that you both keep the reader's interest, AND inform him/her about the product that is the subject.

Tech guide writing, on the other hand, is less about almost telling a story, and more about breaking things down into a very clear, structured and understandable reference. It's a different mindset, IMHO.

Of course, it's perfectly feasible for one writer to switch mindsets, according to the project at hand. If they're good enough. But there's no guarantee that someone very good at one can be good at the other. I suspect most good freelance writers could switch fairly easily, not least because to be good, you're doing it all the time anyway. As a freelance, I could review a single product for, say, three publications, like a consumer computer mag, a business computer mag, and a tech feature in a national newspaper. They would be three very different reviews, because they would need to be - the target reader, and what you can assume they will, on average, know about the subject will vary quite a bit.

It's a bit like using a food processor. You may feed in the same raw ingredients, but whether the review that comes out is chopped, sliced or pureed depends on the blade you selected.

I've never done tech guides, though, partly because I never needed to, and partly because it wasn't where my interest lay.

[MrDLips]

If you need to speak to them so urgently, why don't you try another form of communication?