The opioid epidemic is something that is often talked about but is difficult to tackle. Things like poverty, mental illness and strong addictions continue to keep this crisis going. Many times people abuse the system, or use drugs in such a way that it does not just affect themselves but many around them. Dr. Joel Smithers was one of those tragic cases. In the stories researched, it was determined that Dr. Smithers got sentenced to 40 years in prison for using his medical practice to distribute illegal opioid drugs. He made it seem like they were a clinic helping to deal with chronic aches and pains, but were actually causing people to remain addicted to these dangerous drugs and some even suffered severe side effects or death.
Looking at a story from more than one perspective can change the way the article is perceived or what information is gathered. In Davis’s book Think Like an Editor They give fifty strategies, which include many do’s and don’ts for an editor to make their stories shine. When writing a story, it is important to keep many different balls in the air so the story is a home run. For this story, I used two perspectives to study and determine how they differ. Daily Mail, a global news source out of London and the Lexington Herald, a local choice from Kentucky U.S.A.
Beginning with Daily Mail, the first thing that I noticed is the story was detailed, too detailed. Many sentences reiterated the same point, or just elaborated on a point that did not need to be. One of the 50 key strategies is tight writing, giving the right amount of detail while keeping a story clear and to the point. This also bled into the article’s need to trim a story, which is another key editing strategy. Some of the sentences are hard to read and written in a clunky way. The article also had terrible transitions. It jumped from point to point so fast that people would have a hard time following the story. Three paragraphs in, they were bringing up a point from paragraph one that had no business being where it was.
This story had some wrongs but also many strengths. When looking at the strategy editing for grammar, this article succeeded. Scanning the article multiple times on simply grammar alone, they followed most of the key rules and it was free from basic errors. Outside of grammar and spelling/punctuation (other important keys), they also did a great job of editing for fairness. The discuss how some of the women truly admired this doctor for relieving their pain. Also, they never demonize the doctor for what he did and they bring multiple perspectives into the story. Those who supported/understood why he did it and those who saw why it was wrong.
Switching gears to the Lexington Herald’s side of the story, there were also highs and lows. One of the things they needed to do better here was holding a story. This does not specifically apply to this article but all of the other articles on the subject were taken down from the site due to inaccurate information. It might make a reader feel uncomfortable or untrusting of a news source if the other stories on the subject were taken down. They could have released one or two accurate stories instead of having multiple stories taken down. This story also struggled at points with creating enough context. Certain parts of the article made it seem like people had already read this story somewhere else. It was good at sticking to the point but adding another detail or two might have helped the reader get a better sense of the big picture. It is also important to keep a skeptics mind when writing a story. It felt as though the Herald did not dig as deep on some of the points such as the types of drugs sold and the number of people impacted. It was not completely wrong but after the reading the daily mail article I had some more information that others would want to know.
The article did a fabulous job of tight writing, where the Daily Mail struggled. This article was a much easier read and was in a much more readable format. One of the things that shocked me the most was that both articles were extremely fair. The doctor was not demonized in any way and both stuck to the facts of the case. They even made the doctor seem human, because he is. Lastly, the Lexington article did a great job of show don’t tell. They had clear cut examples of what the doctor was doing. Also, since it was not covered by wordy sentences, they were easy to follow and understand.
Going into this, one might assume that the Daily Mail is a more reputable sources. After reading both articles thoroughly, I discovered that the Lexington Herald had a better telling of the story. This may partly be because the doctor worked with patients in this area of the country. It may also be that the Daily Mail was trying to cover too much ground so the article got lost in run on sentences and clunky writing. Neither article was bad though. Both stayed fair and covered the facts of the story. Hopefully it is stories like this, that can shed light on the true nature of addiction and the greed of capitalist America.
The book I referenced:
Davis, Steve, and Emilie Davis. Think like an Editor: 50 Strategies for the Print and Digital World. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014.
Katie's communication blog 