Press "Enter" to skip to content

Month: November 2015

Will the obituary outlive the death of print?

More than 2,000 years have passed since the first death notices were carved into the stone and metal newspapers of ancient Rome, recording “daily events” (or Acta Diurnas) for their readers. The art of writing about death has changed and improved immensely over the centuries, but the tradition is still catching up to the modern digital age — and so are people’s expectations.

Ask anyone you know what they think their obituary will be like. When I did this with a group of 20-year-old, iPhone-touting Duke students, they all answered with a variation of “long and written well, in the newspaper of my hometown.” How many of these millennials have actually picked up a physical newspaper in the past month? Why then would they assume an obituary belongs to the print world when almost everything else they read has gone online?

Well, it won’t be for long. Legacy.com, an online obituary publisher founded in 1998, has partnered with over 1,500 newspapers across the world so far in an effort to usher the obituary from the printed page to the Internet. Along with a handful of smaller competitors, such as Tributes.com, Legacy aims to centralize, modernize and ultimately revolutionize the way obituaries are written read and stored for history.

“Legacy.com has made it possible for all the obituaries on our platform to be easily searched, read and shared online from any device, so today obituaries have a much larger audience than when they were limited to print,” said Kim Evenson, Legacy’s chief marketing officer. “When something is written with the expectation of sharing with a larger audience, I think it opens up the possibilities.”

In this digital age, when Facebook pages dedicated to the deceased are sprawling with comments, pictures and direct discussion with the dead (“Hi, Uncle Joe, we miss you”), online obituary companies have started to mirror this forum-type format. Legacy, for example, allows closely moderated comments and contains an online store for mourners to send sympathy baskets or flowers to the grieving family.

Related Link: A million ways to die online

“The family has so much that they are responsible for in a short window,” Evenson said in an email interview. “…By providing a Guest Book, flowers and other services, we let the people who are further from the death help and support the family, especially when they are unable to pay respects in person.”

Social media and online services are also changing how professional obituary writers do their work. These digital channels help reporters do more in-depth research and find extra features they can link to that give a fuller picture of the deceased.

“For writing obits, being online means I can move beyond words,” said Jade Walker, a longtime obituary writer and author of the Blog of Death. “I’m still able to tell a great story,” she wrote in an email interview, “but now I can also feature photos, slideshows, artwork, podcasts, videos, tweets, Instagram and Facebook embeds, timelines and message boards.”

‘Why pay for obituary writers…’

With the loss of print subscriptions and advertisements over the past two decades, obituaries have followed comics, movie listings and other newspaper mainstays onto the Web. And in many newspapers these days, those obituaries are increasingly in the form of paid announcements written by family and even by the deceased themselves — not staff obit writers.

“Why pay for obituary writers to cover the community when the grieving families can be charged by the column inch?” asked Walker, who is currently the overnight editor of the Huffington Post. “Legacy simply had the vision to respond to these changes, and acted on them by providing a digital platform for newspapers to publish family-written obits.”

Multiple studies in the journalism world have analyzed these changes in the obit business. In a 2009 paper, University of Georgia journalism professor Janice Hume discussed the growing popularity of online guest books, like those at Legacy, as a place of community and communication — both with the deceased and with each other.

“Remarkably for content sponsored by a traditional news organization, many guest books included messages to the dead,” Hume discovered. “They ranged from expressions of love and gratitude to specific instructions for the deceased. Often they were simple, repeated over and over and for many different people. ‘You will never be forgotten,’ ‘God bless you,’ and ‘We will meet again.'”

Another trend shaking the obit business is the shift to families directly posting messages about their loved ones on their blogs, Facebook pages and other online outlets — a kind of informal bereavement that gives friends, coworkers and childhood friends a chance to add to the story of the dead.

“This provides a much richer portrait of the deceased — a portrait not possible with the typical length and professional constraints of traditional newspaper obituaries,” Hume found. “…Perhaps more important, it provides a public forum for the bereaved.”

The increasing informality of online obituaries has not only affected how a community deals with grief, but has also changed how obituaries are written. The increase in self-written and amateur obituaries has resulted in more euphemisms, humor and personal anecdotes than are common in professionally written obits.

Euphemisms for dying, which I studied for a separate article, were first used by early obit writers in England who wanted to avoid the grisly details of death. American journalists in the 20th century generally moved away from the use of euphemisms, deciding instead that “to die” was the most clear and accurate way to share the news. The word play of euphemisms has come full circle, however, as many paid or family-written obituaries have started using phrases such as “passed away,” “went home” and “departed this life” to describe a loved one’s death.

While this language is becoming more and more common, most of the newspapers that have partnered with Legacy.com still follow the general formal constraints of obituary writing. Hume noted that the transition from print to online is still not complete because of the continued use of journalistic style.

“Products of a formalized editing process, [obits] report facts, and use conventional language — noting, for example, a ‘funeral’ rather than a ‘homecoming’ service, and including a specific cause of death.”

The growth of online obituaries is a natural way for the story form to keep up in the 21st century. But there’s also a risk that these services will come across to some readers and mourners as a scam that makes money from people’s loss and grief.

When I asked Evenson about these kinds of criticisms, she passionately described Legacy.com as a caring, thoughtful and technologically advanced company.

“The company is fiscally responsible so that we can deliver on our promise to be the place where life stories live on,” she said. “We are entrusted with a moment in time where we realize that material things don’t matter… that it’s the love that connects us and lives on. That’s an awesome responsibility, guarding those memories and keeping them for future generations.”

Jillian Apel is a student researcher at the Duke Reporters’ Lab.

Comments closed

A million ways to die online, at least in the language of obits

Death is truly inevitable. It’s one thing that links us all as humans. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy for most people to talk about.

That taboo is reflected on the pages of newspapers and websites that increasingly rely on funeral homes, survivors and sometimes even the deceased themselves to write the death notices — a style of writing that was once the earthly domain of professional obit writers. before digital technology began to change how we share news about death.

RELATED LINK: Will the obit outlive the death of print?

Journalists can be pretty blunt. The Associated Press Stylebook, for instance, tells journalists to stick to words like “death” or “die.” “Don’t use euphemisms like passed on or passed away except in a direct quote,” AP instructs its writers. And many big-city newspapers that still have professional obit writers on staff use that kind of wording. But paid death notices written by funeral homes and family, on the other hand, are much more likely to use more mild, indirect language to avoid sounding harsh. 

After doing a little research, I found these kinds of carefully worded references to death were increasingly common in newspapers and online sites that now depend on these kinds of write-ups instead of ones written by professional journalists. The list below was drawn from obituaries that ran in local newspapers in North Carolina and California over several weeks.

The wording I found fell into three categories.

Polite Euphemisms: These references are generally ways to avoid using The Verb That Must Not Be Used — the exact opposite of the more blunt AP style. Examples I saw:

  • Passed
  • Passed away
  • Passed away peacefully

The Transcendent Experience: People often use religious or spiritual language in death notices to reflect their views on what death truly means — and what lies beyond. Examples:

  • Was welcomed into his home in Heaven
  • Went home to be with Jesus/The Lord
  • Went to be with her/his Lord and Savior
  • Entered into eternal rest
  • Departed this earthly life
  • Passed away from this earthly life to be with his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ
  • Departed this life
  • Earned his way into heaven
  • Entered his eternal home in heaven

More to the Story: These are often examples of what an article on Legacy.com described as “a secret code, a shorthand to mask causes of death that survivors found embarrassing” — such as an overdose or a suicide. But, as the article noted, some survivors actively resist using such language, often in hope that a loved one’s death can be helpful to other families dealing with similar issues. Examples:

  • Died suddenly
  • Passed unexpectedly
  • Slept away

Regardless of what the AP Stylebook says, there is no right or wrong with obituaries. Journalists have to follow the rules for the sake of consistency and accuracy, but for families and funeral homes, the page is their canvas. Confronting the death is an important part of the grieving process — but for many loved ones, that acceptance comes long after an obituary is published.

It makes sense then that so many smaller newspapers choose protecting the family over journalistic style. As a writer, I can marvel at just how elaborate and occasionally eccentric these euphemisms can get. Although, when I shake off the writer’s bias, I know that if one of my loved ones died, I would use every word in the dictionary to avoid “death.”

Jillian Apel is a student researcher at the Duke Reporters’ Lab.

Comments closed

Elevator pitches for the Digital Revolution and the Future of News

Students in my freshman seminar, the Digital Revolution and the Future of News, had to come up with an idea for a new media venture and make an elevator pitch – in an elevator.

Here are the top five projects chosen by the judges (Ryan Hoerger, Leslie Winner of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, and me).

The students will now develop the five ideas into prototypes and will then make presentations about them to the class as if they were pitching to a venture capitalist.

Comments closed

SciCheck puts political claims under a microscope

Developmental psychologists say that most nine-month-olds are just learning how to roll over and utter familiar sounds.* But nine months in, the SciCheck fact-checking channel is standing upright and — to the delight of its proud parents — loudly challenging the politicians it catches toying with science.

SciCheck is part of FactCheck.org, a 12-year-old journalism project run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The new science-oriented feature launched in January to expose “false and misleading scientific claims.” With a new Congress and a competitive presidential campaign, there’s been no shortage of material — from the impact of medical marijuana and genomic research to the environmental consequences of volcanoes and barbeques.

SciCheckThe initial funding for SciCheck came in the form of a $102,000 grant from the Stanton Foundation, a philanthropic organization created in the name of longtime CBS president Frank Stanton and his wife. Now, as part of a new $150,000 grant, the foundation will keep SciCheck in business through the upcoming election year.

Annenberg Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson has said she got the idea for SciCheck during the early stages of the 2012 presidential race, after hearing Republican candidate Michele Bachmann make false claims about the HPV vaccine. Four years later, when Republicans Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina suggested that vaccines pose unproven dangers, SciCheck was there to call them out.

The science section’s sole fact-checker is Dave Levitan. He was a freelance writer for nearly ten years after earning a masters in journalism from New York University, where he also received a certificate in science, health and environmental reporting. SciCheck is Levitan’s first job as a staff member. “The biggest transition was just going into an office everyday,” he said. “I’d been used to working from home.”

While other big-time national fact-checkers — such as PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker — occasionally check scientific claims, Factcheck.org has “a dedicated area of a site and a dedicated person” to focus on those topics, Levitan explained. “I don’t cover much besides science.”

SciCheck closely follows the usual FactCheck.org format for challenging a politicians’ statement. Unlike the fact-checkers that examine both true and false claims, SciCheck only reviews statements it suspects are false or misleading.

Levitan translates scientific studies and evidence into more accessible terms to confute the politicians — a process that can send their spokespeople and spin doctors toggling from Politico to Scientific American.

Scientific topics can draw in a different kind of reader than a typical political fact-check. “It may be a different, specific group that’s interested in science, but SciCheck really is just part of the site, focused on scientific topics,” Levitan said. “I write a little bit differently than someone writing about jobs or immigration, but that’s just the nature of the topic, not necessarily a focus on the audience.”

Despite SciCheck’s nonpartisan status, a majority of its fact-checks have been about Republican claims. Of the 35 stories published so far, only five focused on Democrats’ false or misleading statements, while 25 concentrated on Republicans’. (The remaining posts included a fact-check that covered statements from both parties and video recaps of previous stories).

Levitan’s boss and FactCheck.org’s director, Eugene Kiely, said he is not concerned about the disparity. “Generally speaking, we don’t keep score,” Kiely said. “Our job is to give voters the facts and counter partisan misinformation. We apply the exact same standards of accuracy to claims made by each side, and let the chips fall where they may.”

Levitan attributed the disparity to the Republican presidential candidates’ domination of media coverage. “I think a big part of it is that there are more Republican candidates, so they do a lot of campaign events,” he noted. That means “there are just more opportunities” to get things wrong.

“We are nonpartisan and will cover absolutely anything either party says,” Levitan said. “So if they get science wrong, I’ll cover it.”

Twelve SciCheck stories to date focused specifically on climate change — nine on Republicans’ claims and three on Democrats’. On that issue, Levitan said, “It does seem like there’s more skepticism among politicians than there is even among their constituents.”

The truth is, climate change — like many scientific questions SciCheck covers — is a partisan issue. A 2015 study conducted by the Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 71 percent of Americans who lean Democratic believe global warming is due to human activity, compared to 27 percent of those who lean Republicans.

For fact-checkers, separating the science from the politics and putting claims in context is important. “Sometimes what we write about isn’t necessarily that you got a number wrong but is that you’re spinning a given fact to fit your narrative,” Levitan said.

To broaden its audience, FactCheck.org is seeking new distribution outlets for SciCheck’s works, with stories already picked up by Discover Magazine, EcoWatch.org and the Consortium of Social Science Associations. “I expect that we will expand that further during the 2016 presidential campaign, since we typically get more traffic and attention in presidential years,” said FactCheck.org’s Kiely.

Answers in science aren’t always clear cut. But with SciCheck coming of age this election cycle, voters may have a better guide to help them sort science fact from science fiction.

______________________

* We checked.

Comments closed