I need a new word. Maybe you can help.

This all started when I read about the bias-free language guide posted on the University of New Hampshire’s website. The president of the UNH, it seems, was concerned about what the guide says about the word “Americans.”

But it was another change suggested in the guide that had me personally worried.

(And it’s not the suggestion about alternatives for terms like “senior citizen.” Although I did tell my nephews that even though I quality for the senior discount at Arby’s, if they ever call me a “person of advanced age” I’ll deck them.)

What got me thinking is the suggestion that people should use “y’all” instead of “guys.”

I preach language sensitivity and avoiding stereotypes to my students. There’s no need to put a gender to a job title — firefighter is an excellent replacement for the outdated “fireman,” police officer is a gender-neutral term, supervisor can replace “foreman.”

When I’m editing, I’m always aware of words that are gender-specific when they don’t need to be. But when I’m sitting at home talking, I often find myself using the word “guys” in a gender-neutral way. As in “do you guys want to get a pizza” when there are men and women in the group. Or “keep it down, guys, you’ll wake the neighbors” — even when the gathering is all female.

There’s certainly a long history behind the use of “guys” in that manner. And it’s in the dictionary, so there’s that.

The alternatives just don’t cut it for me. Suggesting in New Hampshire that “y’all” is an alternative for “guys” just seems wrong. I’m not from New Hampshire, but I’m also not from the south. So y’all doesn’t roll off my tongue.

And “folks”? That just seems too folksy. “People” or “you people.” That strikes me as something the nun with the pointer in fourth-grade might have said.

(By the way, in 2010, Erin McKean wrote about this issue in the Boston Globe and decided there were bigger battles to fight.)

But I also know that words matter. So I need a new one to use for a group of people in a casual setting.

See, it’s sometimes easier to do gender-neutral editing of the written word then it is to edit your thoughts before you say them.

I’m not knocking being more aware of the words you use. I’m just acknowledging that it’s something  you need to think about. And train yourself to be sensitive to in all situations.

If you have a good substitute, let me know, and I’ll practice using it.

Oh, and P.S.: When it comes to age, isn’t it better to be specific than to push people into labels liked middle aged.

And P.P.S.: I’m cool with the singular they. But you can often recast the sentence.

Traditionally headline writing has been mainly the domain of the copy desk. But in these days when you are as likely to be reading a story on a cellphone as any other medium,  that headline could have been written by anyone involved in the news  process — the reporter, assigning editor, web producer or copy editor.

And those of us on copy desks that deal with both digital and print platforms also know that “that headline” might be one of two or more written for the story. In most cases, it’s just good practice to have a different headlines for different platforms.

New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote about the changing headline scene April 18 in a column titled,  Hey, Google! Check Out This Column on Headlines.

A headline that works in print when paired with a photograph and placed in the context of a particular section of the paper may be a lot less successful when encountered on Facebook or read on a smartphone. So copy editors are writing different versions of headlines for different platforms, increasing their workload.

I thought the column did a good job of explaining the changes in headline writing brought about by digital delivery and also why some Times headlines change throughout the day.

I was a bit surprised, though — although I probably shouldn’t have been — by the Twitter chatter I saw criticizing the Times headline approach as explained in the column.

Take for instance this Twitter exchange:

How is this not an endorsement of click bait headlines? http://t.co/U2DdOvnDu6 pic.twitter.com/gYCRAJE5l5

— lvdjgarcia (@lvdjgarcia) April 19, 2015

.@lvdjgarcia Clickbait tricks readers. Good SEO tells them what the story is about without sacrificing readability or credibility.

— Patrick LaForge, NYT (@palafo) April 20, 2015

Kudos to Patrick LaForge, New York Times editor for news presentation, for telling it like it is.

There’s no reason a headline with good SEO still can’t be a good headline. A headline that is clear and informative (and aren’t those two good reasons to use keywords?), accurate and arouses reader curiosity sounds like a good headline to me.

In fact, the worst click bait headlines fail in at least two of those areas (is it ever clear what you’re really going to be reading when you click on one?). A headline should sell the story, yes. But it should be clear about what it’s selling.

I can recall seeing some New York Times three-word lyrical headlines on Twitter several years ago and being unclear on what the story was about. Is it a bad thing that when I see a headline tweeted now I can figure the topic out?

Some of the critics of taking SEO into consideration when writing headlines really just want a return to the days when the news always came packaged in newsprint. Well, that’s not going to happen.

Skip the nostalgia for the past. I’d rather click on a headline that makes sense.

Over the course of my career, there have been numerous times where I walked into my managing editor’s office and said “we need to hold this story.”

I remember a specific time when I thought the story was too one-sided. Sometimes it was because there were “facts” in the story that we didn’t back up — and I didn’t think we could back them up.

The strongest memories I have of doing this were when I thought the story made a statement or assumption in the first or second paragraph that wasn’t backed up anywhere else in the piece or that the story just wasn’t fair.

Some of these stories could be fixed before the newspaper’s deadline. But I remember others that couldn’t be — and in fact, a few ended up never being published

I have never felt afraid to speak up about a story or that it was beyond my duties to do that. As a copy editor, I am the last barrier between that story and the public, so my duties are to make sure that the story is acceptable in every way — not just in spelling and grammar.

(I’ve had the good luck to work for some excellent editors who were always willing to listen to the copy desk. So all of those trips to the ME’s office resulted in some sort of action. More reporting work or pulling the story. I was never blown off.)

I was thinking about that when I read the CJR’s report on the Rolling Stone’s UVA campus rape story. Especially when I read this quote: “These decisions not to reach out to these people were made by editors above my pay grade.”

My news editing students at the Missouri School of Journalism asked me what I thought the biggest take-away was from the CJR report. I think they thought I was going to say something about the value of verification (which is vitally important), because digital verification is my project right now.

But I told them this: As copy editors, you should always feel empowered to question a story, and you should never be afraid to bring those concerns to the top editors. It’s your job as both the representative of the reader and as the quality control department.

That’s the crux of the top spot on my fact-checking check list: 1. If you read something and a question pops into your mind, run with it. Don’t ignore it.

Of course, the final decision for something might be “beyond your pay grade.” But for copy editors and fact checkers, it should never be beyond your pay grade to bring up your concerns, strongly make your case, and ask for action. Don’t just present your question and return to your desk. Get an answer.

Maybe the answer will be “here’s why we think it’s OK the way it is.” Then you can make a decision on how sound that reasoning is and what you want to do or where you want to go next.

But don’t be timid. Copy editors can never be timid.

 

First, let me be candid: I may be a copy editor, but I don’t consider myself a grammar master. I leave that distinction to people like my American Copy Editors Society colleague Lisa McLendon, who is a true expert.

Sure, I understand the parts of speech and why tense and noun-verb agreement matter. I could take a grammar test right now and not be ashamed of the results. I can even teach grammar in my editing class without thinking I’m a phony.

But until I can tell you whether to use lay or lie without ruminating about it first, I’ll leave the master status to others.

I don’t need to be a master to know that understanding grammar and sentence structure — and valuing editing — are powerful skills for a writer. I’d tell that to anyone sending out a resume and cover letter. Or posting something online. (In fact, things can get downright uncivil when there’s bad grammar in a post — and if you don’t think that’s true, check the comments.)

“Why is grammar important?” The National Council of Teachers of English has a good answer:

“Grammar is important because it is the language that makes it possible for us to talk about language. Grammar names the types of words and word groups that make up sentences not only in English but in any language. As human beings, we can put sentences together even as children — we can all do grammar. But to be able to talk about how sentences are built, about the types of words and word groups that make up sentences — that is knowing about grammar. And knowing about grammar offers a window into the human mind and into our amazingly complex mental capacity,” according to the NCTE.

“People associate grammar with errors and correctness. But knowing about grammar also helps us understand what makes sentences and paragraphs clear and interesting and precise.”

You don’t have to be a copy editor to understand grammar. Check out these “7 Self-Editing Tips for Reporters Without Copy Editors.” (Shameless self-promotion aside: I am one of the tipsters.)

Still, if you present a good volume of information to the public, I’d suggest you have copy editors. It makes business sense.

Why? Because people do notice errors.

Remember grammar — and editing — is power.

Copy editors need to be keenly aware that what a word means can go well beyond the definition.

While Merriam-Webster may seem to disagree on the face of it (after all, its definition of “definition” is “an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc.”), I suspect the M-W editors know that some words have perceptions beyond their book definition.

A good copy editor understands both a word’s dictionary definition and its greater meaning out in the world. Sometimes words with an innocuous book definition are choices that may offend or paint a misleading picture.

Two recent incidents got me thinking about that. In one, I was talking to a student copy editor about the word “victim.” My point was that “victim” might not be the right word choice for the story because we could not be sure that person actually was the victim of a crime. So I asked him “what do you think when you hear the word victim?”

“I think of someone who is weak,” he answered.

You’ll not find that idea anywhere in the dictionary, but victim is a word that bothers many people. There are reasons to be careful about using it beyond black and white ones.

Some words are contentious. Some words have nuances that are different for different populations.

Some words paint an immediate picture to all who hear them — a picture that isn’t always proven factual.

At a Feb. 3 discussion at the University of Missouri on free speech in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, speaker Adian White, director of the Ethical Journalism Network, talked about the rush to publish. He said journalists need to take their time, reflect, and not react without thinking about the information they have.

That includes word choice, he pointed out, mentioning the word “terrorism.” (The Merriam-Webster definition is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” But world events have added a lot of nuance to what people think about the word.)

Is using certain words before the facts are known as wrong as reporting inaccurate information? People who report and edit crime stories should know you don’t use the word “murder” lightly. What other words fit into the same category?

Part of the copy editor’s role is to look at the word choice of writers and assess if it is appropriate, whether it will offend and if it will be understood in the same way by all groups.

When the word train is hurtling downhill unimpeded, copy editors need to be the brakes that stop the run-away vehicle.