For the first half of my career, I was in radio news. I was trained by the three-minute newscast: Tell as much as you can as quickly and concisely as you can.
When I switched to newspapers, it took me awhile to adjust to adding the secondary and tertiary details that may still be important to the story but wouldn’t be vital enough to include in a 30- or 40-second synopsis. I think I’m still good at saying what needs to be said in an economical number of words.
That’s probably why I lose patience with a recent phenomenon in social media — the advertisement or essay that goes on and on and on before getting to the point. They tell a story that identifies the problem. Then they tell another story about trying to solve the problem, and a third story about another approach to the problem, and they hint that the real solution was out there to be found but not yet. You might have to read five minutes or more of beating around several bushes before the writer draws a conclusion or explains what’s on sale.
In this world of short attention spans and ever-shrinking time frames, what is the point of not getting to the point? especially if you’re trying to sell me a miracle cure? “Now that I have your attention, how long can I hold your attention?” It’s as if the real goal is to keep you reading or listening for as long as possible — the opposite of the original social media challenge to say it all in 140 characters.
I’m frustrated when I read an interesting introduction, click on “See more,” and discovered that I’ve been roped into an article that takes a dozen or more thumb flicks to scroll to the end.
This post is just shy of 325 words. That’s all it takes — more than it takes, really — to encourage writers not to be boring.
