On the Edge

[Philip Ward]

There’s been a lot of talk in these times of the need to be “edgy,” to write and design and edit and do our journalism with “attitude.” Take chances. Push boundaries. Break out. Bend rules. Whatever.

OK. Sounds good. We know we have to change, be more relevant, more useful, more interesting, more entertaining. We know we have to reinvent pretty much everything we do. Maybe edgy is part of the answer.

But danged if anyone can really define what “edgy” or “attitude” means. Or why that’s good. Or for whom.

Maybe that’s just the point – maybe it defies definition. Maybe you just know it when you see it, read it, hear it, click it. Maybe it’s a zen kind of thing -- if you can describe the way, then you do not know the way. (At least no one’s saying “outside the box.”)

The senior editors talked about this, several times. We even toyed with coming up with some guidelines. (Sorry.) But our attempts sounded stilted and stifling, and that’s an understatement. And it smacked of “rules,” which no one needs.

But…

We can’t just go off willy-nilly. Can we?

Does edgy mean cuss words cropping up everywhere? Probably not.

More stories with anonymous sources? No way.

Photos with lots of skin? Hard to imagine.

Linking to blogs with all the above to get the hits? Maybe, maybe not.

Writing more conversationally? Perhaps.

Writing more about the subjects that people are talking about? Sure.

Boiling process stories, if we decide those stories are worth doing at all, to their basic elements? Please, please. But how?

Which stories need edge or attitude? Who decides?

Can anyone do edge or inject attitude? Who wants to? Who will care?

Nobody’s saying no.

But just what are we talking about when we say edgy and attitude?

What are you talking about?


Willie Fernandez
Tim Frank
Pat Thompson
Philip Ward

[Brian Haas]

Thank you for bringing this up, it's a great discussion that needs to be had. "Edgy" has always bugged me in that it has turned into another industry buzzword with little to no meaning. It's like "community policing." Everyone says they do it or want to do it, but nobody can put their finger on exactly what it is. Are we talking New York Post/Daily News-style tabloid reporting? Or something altogether different? Are we adopting "scumbags" and "pervs" for crime stories like they do?

Perhaps this would be a good place for us to showcase some examples of stories that are written in this manner we are desiring. Anyone know any good ones? And not just good ones but ones that reflect the length constraints we are facing?

[Philip Ward]

Gail... I like your definition: attitude is personality. I don't know precisely what that means, but it feels right in the gut.

And Brian... I like your idea. Examples might help us define what we're talking about.

[Tim Ball]

I'm so glad this discussion is happening, as I get so squeamish every time I hear someone exclaim, "But it's edgy!" as an argument for something that is just... bad. (Yes, it's happening already.)

I know my definition of edgy won't match everyone else's. In fact, that everyone has a different definition of it is probably what makes it so challenging to grasp. But when I think of the styles of writing -- and, particularly, headline writing, my mind goes to what is found throughout The New York Times' sports magazine, PLAY.

The style is conversational, lively, spot-on smart and never obvious. It always makes you think. Or chuckle. Or both. I think those are all goals we either have -- or ought to have -- and it's tricky walking the fine line between something like that and something tabloidy and pandering.

The staff also avoids headlinese and uses articles (gasp!) in display type, both of which, I feel strongly, contribute to the conversational tone we're seeking.

Here are a few examples from the latest issue. But I'll page through my back issues and see if I can't find some more:

* Headline on Tiger Woods feature:
"It's good to be immortal."
Deckhead: "Just breathing his air, sharing his sun and drinking his (cold, Evian) water make us more complete. Tiger Woods is the consolation for our mortality."

* Headline on a feature on one of the world's best jugglers:
"As seen on Youtube (and pretty much only on Youtube)"

* Headline on a feature on boxer Floyd Mayweather, exploring whether he has outgrown his sport:
"And now, the biggest entertainer in entertainment"

* Headline on bullfighting story, which talks about how ticket sales are up despite the controversy swirling around the sport:
"Bullfighting is dead! Long live the bullfight!"

* Headline on feature on one of the fiercest servers in women's tennis:
"When Ana Ivanovic serves, you better duck"

[Philip Ward]

anyone have any stories that demonstrate the issue as tim's headlines do?

[Brian Haas]

I'm not a big fan of those headlines... They say nothing to me.

"As seen on Youtube (and pretty much only on Youtube)" could describe thousands of Youtube videos and tells me nothing about what the story describes.

"And now, the biggest entertainer in entertainment" evokes to me actors or musicians, not boxers (and especially not Mayweather, whom I never found particularly entertaining).

The others are better (despite the grammatical error in the last one), but none of them scream out "edgy" to me unless edgy means vague, hype or hyperbole.

Maybe I'm wrong, but edgy to me means taking risks, risks that could potentially piss people off. If we're following the Lee and Randy school of talk radio, half the people listen in because talk radio pisses them off to no end. I'm not saying we should devolve into that morass, but those headlines to me do not scream out to me "risk taking."

Unfortunately, I don't have any good examples yet. The only thing I can think of would be a toned-down New York Post or New York Daily News. Or, and I shudder by even floating this, taking a page from some alt-weeklies.

[Tim Ball]

Well, perhaps I shouldn't have typed up a bunch of headlines without scanning in all of the visuals. "As seen on Youtube (and pretty much only on Youtube)" is pretty clear when you have four pictures of a guy juggling.

Same goes for the Mayweather headline with a portrait of him in a Hollywood/glamour style.

But I digress. To me, nothing should "scream" edgy, and I guess that's my point. We shouldn't have to scream (like "See ya later, alligator," which just made me sigh with disappointment) to be thought of as smarter and different than we are now.

I, for one, shudder at any version of the New York Post or Daily News. But maybe I'm in the minority when it comes to this particular vision for where this newspaper is heading.

[Tim Ball]

I couldn't possibly agree more with Gail's great assessment: "vastly underrated because they don't scream, they just sit there being cool and fun and intelligent." Perfectly put.

[Paul Wallen]

Sorry I'm so late weighing in on this, but was giving it some thought for an entry in the design style guide. I agree that "edgy" is hard to define. Here's what I think it's about:

More surprise and less predictability. Smarter, funnier, and more relevant to a younger audience. More conversational, less formal. More intelligent risk taking, less dumbing down. Worrying more about the people who will “get it” than the few who won’t. It’s about valuing the potential for something to capture a reader’s imagination, inspire them or entertain them above all else.

[J. Damon Cain]

Instead of "edgy," I prefer "smart" and "provocative," preferably used in the same sentence.