Yet More about Forbes' James Michaels

The Wall St. Journal also ran an interesting obit on former Forbes editor James Michaels, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119163606766351063.html. And the Times' Sunday Business section published a column by Gretchen Morgenson entitled, "A Taskmaster Who Changed Business News" (available at www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/business/media/07gret.html).

According to the Journal,

• "As editor of Forbes for nearly four decades, James W. Michaels favored notes short and acerbic: 'This is stenography,' he often wrote of copy that lacked point of view.
• "'It was entirely Michaels's magazine and his vision and style,' says Rick Edmonds, a media business analyst at the Poynter Institute. While Fortune was known for longer articles and Business Week for a survey of the week's news, Forbes specialized in 'having a fresh take and holding businesses accountable from a small-investor viewpoint,' Mr. Edmonds says, adding that a marker of Mr. Michaels's strength is that 'the magazine is not especially different from what it was when he was editor.'"
• "One thing he taught was to buck conventional wisdom...'It is always safe to take counter-cyclical positions in a cyclical world,' Mr. Michaels told Ad Week in 1985."

It's worth repeating two items in that paragraph:

1. "While Fortune was known for longer articles and Business Week for a survey of the week's news, Forbes specialized in 'having a fresh take and holding businesses accountable from a small-investor viewpoint.'"
2. "The magazine is not especially different from what it was when he was editor.'"

According to Morgenson's "Forbes as the Abuse File," Michaels would say:

• “This is badly written and badly edited. It would be an insult to foist it on the reader.”
• “This is a real snoozer, lacking in specifics. Why not just send them a nice lacy valentine and forget the prose.”
• “I’m sending this one back because the character is deader than a dodo.” Can’t the writer “inject a little life without adding 10,000 words?”
• “A good story turned into oatmeal by bad organization.”
• “Please fix this quickest. It lacks most of the ingredients of a Forbes story. The quotes are room emptiers.”
• “This is the kind of sentence that drives readers to stop reading.”
• “This is a paid advertisement. Did you forget to say he walks on water?”
• “If I can’t stay awake editing this, how can a reader stay awake reading it? What’s the point? If it has a point, maybe we can make a story of it.”
• “I can’t make head nor tail of this. There’s a story buried in all this confusion, but I can’t find it. Fix it or kill it.”
• “This is a remarkable job of interviewing an interesting and colorful man and getting precisely one quote.”
• “This is exactly the sort of lazy writer jargon that will put us out of business. Please use the rich resources of the English language.”
• “Too bloody complicated. That’s not writing. Make it simple and interesting. That’s writing.”
• “This is so full of holes, it’s like Swiss cheese.”
• “Here’s another one I can’t understand without help from a lawyer and accountant.”
• “This is more an essay as written than a Forbes article. It badly needs the concrete images, the real people that will anchor it to reality. It’s called shoe-leather reporting.”

"He regularly banned words and phrases he considered overused. 'Fast track,' 'game plan,' 'bottom line' and 'superstar' were some examples. 'Upscale' was another: 'If I see this word again I’ll upthrow,' he wrote.

The late James Michaels, and his impact as longtime editor at Forbes

Today's New York Times contained an obit of James Michaels, a longtime Forbes editor.

The article, available at www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/business/04michaels.html, contained some interesting observations about how Michaels reshaped Forbes' editorial voice. And while I had heard many of them (and more), I think it's worthwhile to hear them again because Michaels' philosophy is ingrained in the Forbes culture.

• He made Forbes opinionated, interpretive and often indecorous, a magazine that was staunchly pro-business (and, its critics said, pro-wealthy) but did not hesitate to skewer companies and executives it saw as failures.
• He often refused to permit articles on topics that other publications had covered, no matter how appealing or important, insisting that his staff find good stories ahead of the competition.
• He strove to make articles shorter and more blunt, with a more clearly stated point of view.
• He belittled the “on the other hand” kind of balance so many publications strive for as mere wishy-washiness.
• Former reporters and editors recall weekly story meetings as a trial by fire, when anyone with a proposal had to be ready to fend off a barrage of harsh questions from the editor.

"Mr. Michaels embraced a rough image of the magazine, and himself. When an editor of the rival Fortune magazine was quoted as saying of Forbes, 'They’re nasty, venal people,' Mr. Michaels pinned the quotation to his office wall, and said, 'I just thought it was terrific.'”