By MERVIN BLOCK
May 2007

Although Katie Couric is a managing editor, she apparently manages to not edit. Or to not edit enough.

As the anchor of the CBS Evening News, she broadcasts many scripts that needed more editing. And she introduces correspondents whose scripts also needed more editing. Let's look at some of them and see what we can all learn:

"And there is a big shakeup at the Smithsonian. Today the institution announced its chief, Lawrence Small, has resigned. As we first reported last week, Small was under fire for what some have called his 'champagne lifestyle.'" (March 26, 2007.) As we first reported? The Washington Post broke the story about Small's problems on Feb. 25. The head on the 2,000-word article: "Smithsonian Head's Expenses 'Lavish,' Audit Says." That night, CBS ran a story about Small.

On March 19, the Post ran a 2,200-word article: "Smithsonian Documents Detail/Chief's Expenses." That night, the CBS Evening News ran a story about the expenses. One week later, on March 26, the Smithsonian announced Small's resignation. And it was that night when Couric said, "As we first reported last week, Small was under fire…."

Other scripts suggest that Couric needs a new clock or new calendar. On March 21, a Wednesday, she said, "The Coast Guard has just made a huge drug bust." But the correspondent went on to say, "Acting on an intelligence tip, Coast Guard cutters and aircraft moved in Sunday on a 300-foot cargo ship off the coast of Panama…." Sunday! That seizure took place three days earlier than Couric had said.

Further, the correspondent's sentence went against broadcast style. He began it with a participle, which is not conversational. No one would say at the dinner table, "Feeling hungry this afternoon, I grabbed a sandwich."

In the program's opening headlines, Couric had said:

"Tonight, a major victory in the other war, the war on drugs. The Coast Guard boards a suspicious boat and makes one of the biggest drug busts ever, seizing tons of cocaine that was destined for the United States." Should have been "were destined." Better yet, delete were and make it: "tons of cocaine destined for the United States." Also, a 300-foot vessel, as the correspondent described it, is not a boat. A boat is a small craft, one that can usually be carried aboard a ship.

Then another major victory: Couric said, "Saudi Arabia is claiming a major victory tonight in the war on terror." (April 27, 2007.) When she said that, it was 1:30 a.m. in Saudi Arabia. I doubt that they were claiming anything at that hour. In fact, the story had broken more than 12 hours earlier. I hope Couric's ambiguous construction wasn't an attempt to pull the cashmere over our eyes.

"A State Department report tonight says terror attacks worldwide are up sharply, along with the death toll." (April 30, 2007.) The State Department released that information at 4:15 p.m., not tonight. (NBC's Nightly News said, "Tonight the new report is out," ABC's World News said, "Today, the State Department released its worldwide survey….")

A tricky time element also figured in a lead-in delivered by an anchor sitting in for Couric: "An insurgent group with ties to al-Qaeda claimed responsibility tonight for the suicide bombing at the Iraqi parliament…." (April 13, 2007.) In fact, the insurgent group claimed responsibility for the bombing more than 12 hours earlier.

More scripts delivered by Couric:

"And there's a major recall to tell you about tonight." (March 16, 2007.) Please don't waste time and tell me you're going to tell me. Just go ahead and tell me. (Major is a major word on all network evening newscasts.) Tonight? Why keep repeating that word? Viewers already know it's tonight. On May 8, Couric's newscast used major four times.

"Did the U-S military try to rewrite history? That was the allegation on Capitol Hill today as…." (April 24, 2007.) That wasn't an allegation; it was a question. Another script, another question:

"And 18 seconds. Did you know that, on average, is how long doctors let patients describe their symptoms before cutting them off? Eighteen seconds." (March 16, 2007.) One second: That's how long Couric should have looked at that script before tossing it. The problem is, it backs into the story and opens with the key fact. No one speaks that way or tells a story that way. Would you ever say: "Dead. That's what Terry Taser is tonight. Dead"? As for question leads, how many viewers hurry home to watch the news so they can catch the latest questions?

That 18-second figure needs attribution. The doctor Couric interviewed did not use it, but he had used it elsewhere. In any case, the script was DOA.

"General Petraeus said the U-S military, quote, 'can never sink to the level of the enemy.'" (May 7, 2007.) Using "quote" is an awkward way of introducing a quotation. "Quote" is an ugly word. People don't use it in ordinary conversation. Better: "General Petraeus said the U-S military—in his words—'can never sink to the level of the enemy.'" Still better in most cases: paraphrase the quotation.

Sixty years ago, Burton L. Hotaling wrote in A Manual of Radio News Writing: "Thoughtless use of such hackneyed terms as 'quote' and 'end quote' tend to interrupt the listener's thought. They have a barking, staccato sound no matter how softly they are spoken. They call attention to themselves and detract from the story." Through the years, other experts have echoed Hotaling. And 20 years ago, R. H. MacDonald wrote in A Broadcast News Manual of Style: "Do not EVER say 'quote' and 'unquote.' That is a holdover from the ancient days of sending news by telegraph when the sending operator wanted to be certain the receiving end knew the limits of the quoted material."

"And here at home, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine made good on his promise to close the legal loophole law that allowed…." (April 30, 2007.) Legal loophole law? Sounds loopy. And here at home? Virginia is not my home.

"In two short weeks, we'll know if France will have its first woman president." (April 23, 2007.) All weeks are the same length.

"It all began here just over a year ago and sent shock waves across the nation." (April 11, 2007.) Shock waves? What might be shocking is that a network evening newscast would use a cliché older than Methuselah. (Time to find some new clichés?)

"If you're wondering what to pack these days and what products you can't bring on a plane, it has changed again." (Sept. 25, 2006.) You take products on a plane. Bring and take are used in relation to the speaker: "Please bring me another glass," but "Please take that glass away." And what's the antecedent of it?

"Coming up next: more and more of our food comes from China, but how safe is it? You might not like what we found out." (April 26, 2007.) What I dislike is an anchor's telling me what my reaction to a story might be.

"And don't forget: for more on the Virginia Tech story, including the very latest details and pictures, you can go to our Website…." (April 16, 2007.) The latest is the latest. Nothing can be later than the latest, not even the very latest.

Some of the faulty scripts on the CBS Evening News were broadcast by correspondents:

"Investigators bugged more than 90 phone lines, sifted through 27,000 hours of video…." (April 30, 2007.) Phones are tapped, not bugged.

"After three years, Tiger Woods [a South China tiger named for the golfer] and the others are successfully able to hunt for themselves." (March 27, 2007.) Successfully able says the same thing twice.

"Shortly after the vote and one day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chided Mister Bush to take a deep breath…." (March 29, 2007.) Chide means "scold mildly." It isn't followed by "to." You can persuade someone to do something, but you can't chide him to.

"And she wasn't thrilled about him going." (March 16, 2007.) Should be "his going." Reason: a pronoun preceding a gerund should be in the possessive.

"The government has no appetite for regulating the food companies now, so parents better watch what their kids eat…." (March 29, 2007.) Should be "had better.""Sadr has been laying low since the troop surge began…." (April 9, 2007.) Should be "lying low." We'll review lie and lay—but not today.

"You hear these kind of boasts…." (Sept. 14, 2006.) Should be this kind or these kinds.

"In a sworn affidavit, Goodling claims a senior official…." (March 26, 2007.) Sworn affidavit is redundant. An affidavit is a sworn statement. If it isn't sworn, it isn't an affidavit.

And if scripts aren't edited rigorously, they aren't ready for broadcast, certainly not by a network.