Here’s how it works:
- We discuss a memo that I wrote when I was a wire editor at The News & Observer. The paper’s managing editor requested the memo after questioning why wire stories in the paper referred to “Myanmar” while the BBC called the same country “Burma.” (More on that here.)
- I ask the students to break into groups of four to resolve several style quandaries. These change from semester to semester, depending on recent news events. Examples have included Mumbai vs. Bombay and refugee vs. evacuee.
- Each group of students conducts research on the meanings, uses and histories of terms. They look at what other publications do and what guidelines in the AP stylebook may be applicable.
- Each group offers its recommendations. The class as a whole discusses them until we come to an agreement. We then use the students’ style recommendations on assignments for the rest of the semester.
Freshman vs. first-year student. “Freshman” prevailed, though a few students preferred “first-year student.” A sports-minded student noted that “first-year student” would be awkward when writing about athletes who redshirt.
Ground Zero vs. ground zero, in reference to the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York. This was a pretty even split across two sections of the class. Some groups said that the World Trade Center area was a unique place that deserved a capitalized term. Others said that wasn’t fair to similar places, that there are other “grounds zero.”
Mike vs. mic, as a short form for “microphone.” This, to my surprise, was the slam dunk. Not one student took up for “mike.” Some hadn’t realized that the word could be used that way. Many said they were influenced by campus fliers and other advertising for “open mic nights.” A few others said “mike” looked like a person’s name, a viewpoint I took in this post. For both sections of the editing course, we adopted “mic” as an acceptable short form for “microphone,” should that come up again this semester.