写作方法2020kottke.org
吉姆·莱勒的新闻写作准则
Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism
导读
帖子整理了资深主播 Jim Lehrer 的新闻工作准则，评论区的讨论则围绕“今天还守不守得住这些准则”展开：记者群体内部本就分化、接近消息源的采访模式（access journalism）会腐蚀报道、社交媒体把记者个人推到台前。写作者值得一读，因为它谈的核心问题是如何靠程序和自律支撑可信度，而文笔本身并不足够。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
把消息来源的渠道类型写清楚：你是通过公关、熟人还是独立查证拿到的，渠道本身也是读者判断可信度的信息。
- 02
少用“最后一位好记者”“所有媒体都一样”这类绝对化修辞，一句夸张就会让整篇文本失去信任。
- 03
不要用“记者们认为”这种整体化表述，写清是哪种媒体、哪个岗位、什么处境下的人，才具体可信。
- 04
注意：读者会把你的社交账号和你的正式文本一起读，个人化的公开表达会影响读者如何信任你的作品。
HN 评论精选
记者不是同质的群体，行业内部差异巨大，讨论时不宜一概而论。
作为记者说一句：这场讨论缺少从业者视角。新闻业的工种差异极大：为《纽约时报》、地方报纸、科技杂志或旅游频道工作完全是不同的职业，就像“工程师”里有人写软件、有人做测试、有人造机器、有人做咨询，彼此并不互通。媒体之间也不同，老板、规则各异。记者和所有人一样是雇员，你可以有伦理和原则，但归根到底这是一份工作，老板若要求你……
Knulp查看英文原文
I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english mistakes - I'm french and it's not my native langage. First I'd like to adress there's very different kinds of journalism, different set of skills associated with it and of course, a company they work for. As a job, working for the New York Times, for a local journal, for a tech magazine or for travel channel is completely different. I don't think people realise how different the job actually is from one media to the other. You can't say 'journalists' the same way you can't say 'engineers' because there's people doing software, people doing tests, people building machines, people advising companies and many other people doing many other things and having no idea how to do some other engineer job because it is... entirely different. We're not interchangeable and we don't all do the same job at all. All medias are also different. Which implies different owners, rules, and bosses. As a journalist, you're like everyone else : you're an employee. You can have ethics, you can have thoughts or a list of rules. At the end of the day, it's a job and if your boss asks you to do something completly stupid, you can either say no, loose that job and possibly die of hunger. Or you roll with it and hope very very hard it will not stay on the internet. (Spoiler alert : it will and you'll be ashamed of it all your life.) You do have rights in some countries; but first, like many rights, not everyone know them; and second, those rights don't necessarily protect you. Maybe the media can't fire you right away or because you refused working, but a few months later, when they're considering reconducting your contract, you'll just get cut. It's just sad math. Not everyone can afford to be a hero.
别把行业衰退写成“最后的良心”，有操守的记者仍然很多。
作者称他是“最后一批”这样的记者，可能只是口误。不守 Lehrer 标准的那部分新闻业在扩张，但这不应让我们忽视：仍有很多记者在秉守正直地报道，有些还表现出极大的勇气。
mannykannot查看英文原文
I think the author unintentionally misspoke in calling him "one of the last". The growth of journalism in which Lehrer's standards are not observed should not distract us from the fact that there are many journalists reporting with integrity, and in some cases, great courage.
一味追求“接近消息源”的采访模式，会系统性地拉低报道质量。
除了党派性和耸动化，“access journalism”（靠接近权力与消息源换取采访机会的模式）也大幅压低了报道质量。另外值得参考乔姆斯基的《制造共识》，它把伪装成新闻的宣传套路讲得很清楚。
proximitysauce查看英文原文
In addition to partisanship and sensationalism, access journalism has dramatically lowered the quality of what gets reported: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism It's also worth referencing Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent which lays out the playbook for propaganda posing as journalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
社交媒体让记者个人取代机构成为焦点，暴露偏见、腐蚀报道，读者应更看重机构而非个人品牌。
在我看来，Twitter 是新闻业遇到的最糟的事。强大的机构和把关当然有代价，但过去我读的是《纽约时报》《华盛顿邮报》这个机构，而不是某个记者；机构挡在前面，个人隐在后面。有了社交媒体，记者本人成了焦点，人皆有之的偏见随之暴露，你能看到香肠是怎么做出来的，看到 access journalism 如何腐蚀报道，也看到这些机构多么不多元，记者几乎都像出身常春藤或文理学院、家里有新闻界人脉的人。大机构的多数内容依然很好，气候、国际政治、解释性报道和数据报道都很出色，但 2016 年后我基本避开了政治报道和大多数观点专栏。
40acres查看英文原文
For me, Twitter has been the worst thing to happen to journalism. There are a lot of downsides to strong institutions and gatekeeping, but when it comes to journalism I always felt like I was reading The New York Times or The Washington Post and not an individual reporter. The shroud of not getting an up close an personal look put the institution at the forefront. With social media, Twitter specifically, the journalist becomes the main focal point -- unfortunately the biases comes out as we are all human and you begin to get a closer look at how the sausage is made, how much "access journalism" corrodes coverage, and particularly how non-diverse these institutions are (everyone feels like they went to some Ivy or liberal arts college with somewhat wealthy or well connected in journalism relatives). A majority of the content is still really good (climate reporting, international politics, 'explainers' and data backed reporting are all excellent) from the big institutions but I've totally avoided political and most opinion columns since 2016.
同类还值得读
被低估的工程技能：把文章写好
Undervalued Engineering Skills: Writing Well
这篇文章讨论为什么“写得好”是被低估的工程能力，以及它如何在团队协作、系统设计和职业发展中持续带来回报。
写作方法2019 · 1,109 分 · 371 评4 条写作要点编辑精选每行只写一句话：让写作和修改都更轻松的排版法
Writing one sentence per line
这是 Derek Sivers 的一篇短文，主张写作时每行只放一个句子，而不是按段落排版。
写作方法2022 · 849 分 · 297 评4 条写作要点编辑精选书面沟通是远程工作的超级能力
Written communication is remote work super power
这篇文章讨论远程工作中书面沟通的价值，评论区则补充了异步与同步沟通的适用场景，并提醒读者：备忘录、结论先行、结构化命令格式等书面沟通传统早已有之。
写作方法2020 · 831 分 · 190 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写出有用的文字
How to Write Usefully
保罗·格雷厄姆在这篇文章里给"有用的写作"下了一个可操作的公式：有用≈重要×新颖×正确×清楚，任一项为零，整篇文章就等于零；他还主张敢下确定判断、删掉让自己心虚的句子。
写作方法2020 · 821 分 · 285 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写得更清楚、想得更清楚，并学会复杂材料（PDF）
How to write more clearly, think more clearly, and learn complex material [pdf]
这份 PDF 讨论如何把文章写清楚、把思路理清楚，并用写作来学习复杂材料。
写作方法2022 · 779 分 · 153 评4 条写作要点编辑精选