{"id":123,"date":"2026-03-30T15:43:22","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T15:43:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/?p=123"},"modified":"2026-09-11T12:00:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-11T12:00:26","slug":"lsj-9-lesson-9-writing-features","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/2026\/03\/30\/lsj-9-lesson-9-writing-features\/","title":{"rendered":"LSJ 9. Lesson 9 : Writing Features"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

9. Lesson 9 : Writing Features<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n
\n

The different structure and style required for a features article. How to gauge the right approach, focus on the importance of interviews in features writing and how to adapt the tone and style to the subject. Dealing with topical news features.
\nAssessment tasks include:<\/strong><\/em>
\nComparing the merits of published news features and personal profiles<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS :\u00a0 LSJ COURSE NEWS JOURNALISM – MAIN FILE 9 LESSON9 JN9<\/a><\/p>\n

ORIGINAL LESSON\u00a0 9\u00a0<\/span><\/h1>\n

JOURNALISM AND NEWSWRITING
\nLESSON 9
\nWriting Features
\n\u00a9 LONDON SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM
\n1
\nCHAPTER 9
\nWRITING FEATURES
\nWhat are features? Categorising features. News features. Why interview?
\nFeatures structure and style.
\nWHAT ARE FEATURES?
\nSooner or later you are likely to get the opportunity to write a full-length feature for
\nyour paper. This might come in the form of a news backgrounder commissioned by
\nyour news editor or a direct request from the features desk \u2013 possibly because they
\nare short-staffed, perhaps because you have shown a general interest in that
\ndepartment, have demonstrated a particular flair for colourful writing or have
\ndeveloped a specialist knowledge of a particular subject.
\nIt may be a long-cherished ambition to write such an article or a prospect that you
\ndread; either way, you will want to grasp the opportunity enthusiastically, even if it is
\nonly to prove to yourself whether or not you have what it takes to be a feature writer.
\nFeature articles come in all lengths, styles and formats and deal with every
\nconceivable subject, which makes it hard to find a simple, helpful definition of what
\nthey have in common. But if there is one word which best sums up what good
\nfeatures are all about, it is insight.
\nWhether your article is a personal profile or an analysis of a complex or controversial
\nissue, you should be aiming to give your readers genuine insights into your chosen
\nsubject.
\nBe careful, though. Passing on such insights doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that your
\nfinished article has to be long, complex, esoteric or exhaustive. Structure, focus,
\nstyle and approach are all-important \u2013 and that means building on many of the skills
\nyou have acquired while writing news stories.
\nDon\u2019t forget what you have learned about wasteful words, for example. A feature
\nmay deal with more complicated issues or go into subjects in greater depth than the
\naverage news story, but for it to remain clear, concise and comprehensible, your
\nwriting style should remain crisp and cogent.
\nThere\u2019s more scope for background \u2018colour\u2019 than in a news story, of course, and
\nmore freedom to inject a little of your own personality. That\u2019s one of the reasons why
\nfeature writing is so rewarding. But don\u2019t make the mistake of thinking features are
\nautomatically long, or that they can be woolly, rambling, poorly thought-out or too
\nwriter-centred. A good feature should still incorporate lively, vigorous language,
\nactive verbs and the thoughtful use of quotes from experts and case studies. Indeed
\nconnecting with others key to the story to help shape and inform your article is every
\nbit as important in feature writing as it is in news.
\n2
\nBrendan Hennessey wrote in his book Writing Feature Articles (Focal Press):
\n\u201cFeatures are not as hard to write as a doctoral thesis, a \u2018Dear John\u2019 letter or a
\nholiday postcard, but they are tricky. Unlike news stories, they rarely have an
\nobvious beginning or an end. You want to be clear but you don\u2019t want to be
\npatronising. Humour is good but not silliness. The author\u2019s personality should be
\nvisible but no one wants to be told they have written about themselves rather than
\ntheir subject. Accuracy is important but so is the need to entertain, especially over
\nlonger lengths. So yes, each is a puzzle that needs to be solved, and in its own way.
\nYet a good feature is more satisfying than almost any other form of journalism.\u201d
\nAnd Harold Evans in Editing and Design (Heinemann 1972) made another point that
\nis still valid several decades later: \u201cMost good news and feature leads have one thing
\nin common: they are specific and human.\u201d
\nIn newspapers, features serve a variety of purposes. They help to expand and
\nexplain news items, profile interesting people (who need not necessarily be
\ncelebrities), and put things in perspective. Over the years they have also increasingly
\nstrayed into magazine territory, dealing with lifestyle and consumer issues, film, TV
\nand showbusiness and dealing with a plethora of special interest subjects like travel,
\nmotoring and technology.
\nBecause they have a different writing style and pace from news stories, they serve
\nanother important function in \u2018leavening\u2019 the breathless diet of breaking news stories.
\nA reader may be encouraged to \u2018relax\u2019 over a feature \u2013 there may be room for
\nhumour and controversy, for radical opinions or light-hearted perspectives on
\ndifferent aspects of our daily lives.
\nIn terms of design and layout, features are often deliberately given extra prominence
\nto make them stand out from surrounding news stories. And since readers are likely
\nto skip a 1,000-word slab of grey type, a considerable amount of effort is put into
\npresenting features in a dramatic and appealing way, with the imaginative use of
\npictures and a variety of other sub-editing devices from raised capitals to different
\nheadline types and engaging standfirsts (the introductory paragraph that often
\nincludes the writer\u2019s by-line and explains what the feature is about). Similarly online
\nfeatures will be characterised by lots of images, a standfirst, drop cap and pull
\nquotes.
\nFrom the writer\u2019s point of view, features are fascinating territory. They provide more
\nscope \u2013 and greater challenges \u2013 than news stories. The prominence they are
\nusually given is also guaranteed to generate a warm glow of satisfaction.
\nUnfortunately, good feature style is an elusive commodity and one which many
\nreporters find almost impossible to attain. But that\u2019s partly because there is very little
\nfeatures training within newspapers \u2013 perhaps stemming from an old-fashioned
\nperception that feature writers are born, not made.
\nDon\u2019t feel disheartened. If you remember the basics which you have already learned,
\nconstantly replenish your fund of ideas and always have a clear understanding of the
\nmarket you are writing for, writing features can give you an enormous sense of
\nsatisfaction.
\n3
\nCATEGORISING FEATURES
\nYou could sub-divide features into many different categories, but here are some of
\nthe most common \u2018types\u2019. Some writers tackle a broad cross-section of different
\nfeatures, while others restrict themselves to a small but well-defined specialist area.
\nAs you read, try and think through which type of features interest you most. Do you
\nhave any specialist interests or knowledge? Do you tend to be interested in
\nindividual people or in understanding and explaining complex issues? What type of
\nfeatures do you most enjoy reading yourself?
\n\u2022 News features \u2013 Articles triggered or directly linked to stories in the news.
\nThese may take the form of expanding and explaining the impact topical
\nstories of having on people\u2019s lives, work and businesses. For example if a
\nnews story is about a serious flood in a small town, a feature could examine
\nhow people directly affected are coping with the disaster. Sometimes these
\nwill be \u2018turned round\u2019 within a few hours \u2013 a regional paper editor may decide
\nat the morning conference to get a writer to produce a relevant news feature
\nfor the website and tomorrow\u2019s paper. Articles which involve exploring a fresh
\n\u2018angle\u2019 on a story \u2013 and those commissioned by magazines and Sunday
\npapers \u2013 may remain topical for a much longer period of time and therefore
\nhave a longer \u2018shelf-life\u2019.
\n\u2022 Profiles \u2013 One-to-one interviews remain enormously popular in both the local
\nand national press, and in magazines. Subjects may be international
\ncelebrities or completely unknown local people who have an interesting story
\nto tell.
\n\u2022 Lifestyle features \u2013 Traditionally popular in magazines, but today widely
\nused by newspapers on women\u2019s pages, in special lifestyle sections and
\nsometimes on general features pages.
\n\u2022 Nostalgia features \u2013 More popular in the local than the national press, but
\nthere is still a strong market for articles that recall a lost way of life or hark
\nback to momentous events from the past. As with most features, you will still
\nusually need to find a topical \u2018peg\u2019 to hang these on \u2013 linking in with a
\nforthcoming anniversary, for example, or a local exhibition or school project.
\n\u2022 Consumer features \u2013 Popular with magazines and on lifestyle pages, these
\nare perhaps best epitomised by the magazine Which? where considerable
\nresources are allocated to comparing and assessing rival products. At a
\nregional level, such articles might take the form of occasional \u2018taste tests\u2019 of a
\nnew (and possibly unusual) product, or a comparison of the costs and
\nstandards of service provided by local health clubs, bus operators and the like.
\n\u2022 Question & Answer \u2013 Interviews conducted and written in a Q&A format,
\nwhere the interviewee simply answers a list of published questions without the
\nwriter interpreting or analysing the responses. Popular with women\u2019s
\nmagazines, who like asking celebrities offbeat questions about their favourite
\nfood or sexual preferences. Rare in newspapers, although occasionally used
\nfor high profile interviews \u2013 with a newly elected politician for example \u2013 to
\n4
\ngive readers an unambiguous picture of the individual\u2019s views on a range of
\nissues or an at-a-glance introduction to a personality in the news.
\n\u2022 Specialist features \u2013 These deal in some detail with specific subjects \u2013
\ntravel, motoring, gardening, showbusiness, antiques, etc. These will often
\nrequire some specialist knowledge or a strong personal interest in the area
\ncovered.
\n\u2022 Reviews \u2013 A specialist form of feature writing which demands a combination
\nof analysis, interpretation and criticism. May involve theatre, TV, music, the
\narts, books, etc. On national papers, specialist knowledge and experience in
\nthe relevant area is expected. Regional newspapers and websites may
\nwelcome enthusiastic beginners, especially those dealing with niche interests.
\nHowever do be aware that instant reactions on social media are undermining
\nthe traditional review and many publications have scaled down their review
\noutput.
\n\u2022 Regular columns \u2013 These range from weekly slots on specialist subjects to
\nspace provided for high-profile columnists to air their views on a subject of
\ntheir own choice. However, this is an area often reserved for very experienced
\nor veteran journalists with many years of experience under their belts.
\n\u2022 Advertising features \u2013 Sometimes generated by staff in a small specialist
\ndepartment, these are commercially orientated features specifically written to
\nprovide a platform for advertising. They may deal with general subject areas
\nor directly relate to the activities of those companies advertising \u2013 a new
\ngarage franchise, for example, or a restaurant which is under new
\nmanagement.
\n\u2022 Supplements\/special projects \u2013 One-off publications can cause all kinds of
\nheadaches to hard-pressed features editors. There may be opportunities to
\ncontribute to a special guide to what to do during the school holidays, a
\ncommemorative or anniversary supplement or a pull-out to celebrate the start
\nof the new football season.
\nSubjects for features: It may help you to divide issue-based features into a series
\nof broad categories \u2013 a little like Government departments \u2013 even if it\u2019s only to give
\nyou a few useful headings for your filing system. Add your own categories to the
\nfollowing:
\n\u2022 Animals
\n\u2022 Consumer
\n\u2022 New business and entrepreneurship
\n\u2022 Significant anniversaries
\n\u2022 Education
\n\u2022 Environment
\n5
\n\u2022 Family issues
\n\u2022 Housing and the property ladder
\n\u2022 Social media
\n\u2022 Law and order
\n\u2022 Leisure & entertainment
\n\u2022 Lifestyles
\n\u2022 \u2018Triumph over adversity\u2019 stories
\n\u2022 Politics
\n\u2022 Religion
\n\u2022 Technology
\n\u2022 Sport
\n\u2022 Transport
\nNEWS FEATURES
\nPeople and events in the news are a rich source of inspiration for newspaper and
\nmagazine writers and topicality will frequently have an enormous influence on an
\neditor\u2019s features agenda. Why? Because you are tapping into stories which may
\nalready have generated controversy, debate, intrigue or curiosity and editors are
\nparticularly anxious to publish stories with a new angle or twist that show their title is
\nahead of the field in identifying what people want to read about.
\nThis doesn\u2019t mean features writers are constantly chasing breaking stories against
\nimpossible deadlines before they go \u2018stale\u2019. There are a number of techniques for
\ninjecting topicality into articles which allow papers to set their own agenda. A little bit
\nof lateral thinking also helps features writers to work at a more manageable pace.
\nNews features tend to fall into one of two quite distinct categories: those that focus
\non issues and those that focus on people. And that means issues and people who
\nare in the news \u2013 or about to be.
\nIssue-based news features tend to expand, explain and explore the background to
\ncontroversial decisions, new trends, conflicts and debates. They may analyse
\nconfusing or contradictory subjects where there are two or more distinctive and
\nopposing views.
\nThey may examine the implications of someone\u2019s actions \u2013 a council\u2019s decision, a
\nnew Act of Parliament or a road-building scheme. In nearly all such cases, they will
\nbe written for the \u2018ordinary\u2019 reader, cutting through the jargon and technical waffle
\nand presented in straightforward language everyone can understand.
\n6
\nBear in mind, though, that not all ordinary readers are the same. The target audience
\nfor Woman is different from that of the Daily Telegraph or the Sun \u2013 and writers for
\nthose respective publications will need to adjust their style and approach
\naccordingly.
\nTackling such features demands the same kind of balanced approach you would
\nadopt for a news story. You will usually need to find out all sides of the argument and
\nput them in context. It is your job to interpret and analyse, but not normally to judge
\nthe rights and wrongs of the issue \u2013 let the people you interview do that, preferably in
\ntheir own words, and leave the comment to the columnists and bloggers.
\nIn writing an issue-based feature, you are usually more interested in what people
\nhave to say than in their personal idiosyncrasies or character traits. The exception is
\nwhen their personality is directly relevant to the issue. But if you are writing about a
\nstraightforward difference of opinion \u2013 and especially when you are interviewing
\nrepresentatives of organisations \u2013 an individual’s personal foibles are irrelevant. Let\u2019s
\nsay you\u2019ve got an environmentalist to give their views in a debate over the local
\ndumping of toxic waste. We only want to know their name and information which is
\nrelevant to how we interpret what they\u2019ve got to say: are they an expert or a
\nspokesperson, an activist or campaigner, scientist or eco-warrior? We don\u2019t need to
\nknow their hair colour, attitude, marital status or height.
\nAlmost the reverse is true with people-based features. If we are interviewing
\nsomeone whose controversial decision may dramatically affect our lives, the reader
\nmay well want to find out a wealth of personal information that helps put their
\ndecision in context. Is it an elder statesman with 40 years’ experience under his belt,
\nor a 30-year-old rising star keen to shake up the established order? An individual\u2019s
\nbackground, beliefs and experiences may suddenly be very relevant to the debate \u2013
\nright down to their appearance, attitude and family circumstances.
\nNote that for a news feature we will tend to focus only on those personal
\ncharacteristics that are relevant to the issue at hand, whereas an in-depth profile
\ninterview will take a much more wide-ranging look at an individual\u2019s lifestyle,
\ninterests, hobbies, family circumstances, influences, philosophy, etc.
\nThe normal reason for opting for a people-based feature format is to humanise the
\nstory. Many articles which could have been tackled simply by using library files or
\ngetting the views of various officials, spokespeople and researchers can become a
\ngreat deal more interesting and accessible if greater emphasis is laid on the human
\nelement.
\nOften the best way of humanising a complex issue is through case studies, where
\n\u2018typical\u2019 individual experiences are used to illustrate a particular problem. A feature
\nabout a controversial pay dispute might therefore focus on the problem as seen
\nthrough the eyes of a single family. Readers are better able to relate to the plight of
\nthe individuals involved and understand the reality of their situation if they are
\nallowed to explain the issues in their own language. (TV viewers are familiar with this
\ntechnique being used to humanise the actual impact of Budget decisions on ordinary
\npeople\u2019s lives).
\n7
\nIf junior hospital doctors are campaigning against working over-long hours, it may be
\nmore effective to allow readers to see the problem through the bleary eyes of a
\nweary medic rather than hearing a spokesperson explaining in theoretical terms why
\nsuch long hours are potentially dangerous.
\nThere are numerous occasions when you\u2019ll want to focus on how a particular group
\nof people operate \u2013 how the team ticks, so to speak. It could be a fire crew, a
\nsports team or the staff of a new hotel. In such cases, a straightforward phone
\ninterview with the boss is unlikely to give you a good sense of the atmosphere or
\nwhat\u2019s actually involved. It\u2019s often better to see at first hand what the job involves
\nand find out what different members of the team have to say.
\nNostalgia features are often brought to life by individual first-hand accounts of a
\nparticular era or way of life, the personal recollections being used to supplement and
\nadd colour to library and research material.
\nThe bald facts about a group of old pilots campaigning to restore a 1970s airplane
\nmight make dry and dusty reading \u2013 but their individual reminiscences about those
\nheady days of the early jumbo might make riveting reading.
\nIf you are unsure whether the people-based approach is likely to prove effective, ask
\nyourself the following questions:
\n\u2022 does the feature need a stronger human angle?
\n\u2022 would a case study help put the whole issue in context?
\n\u2022 will personal reminiscences add colour to dry facts?
\nTo produce a powerful news feature, you will need to have a very clear idea of the
\nangle you are pursuing. Is your article simply exploring the background to a longrunning row, or is it investigating a new dimension or perspective to the story that
\nhas been glossed over to date? Your initial preparations will involve deciding to
\nwhom you need to speak in order to obtain the information you are looking for. This
\nmay include those directly involved but may also extend to experts in the field who
\ncan provide an unbiased overview of the situation. If the experts disagree, you will
\nneed to reflect their conflicting views.
\nYou will need to carry out considerable background research, although the precise
\namount involved will depend on the depth of the insights your finished feature is
\ngoing to provide. In some cases, a cursory glance through all the relevant stories
\npublished to date may be sufficient as a starting point, whereas other features might
\ninvolve reading a great deal about your chosen subject, or getting experts to explain
\nthe issues involved in simple language that you (and your readers) can understand.
\nThroughout this process, you will be looking to firm up the facts, identifying areas
\nwhere all the parties involved are in agreement. You will then want to be able to spell
\nout those issues upon which opinions diverge \u2013 using direct quotes to add colour,
\nvigour, clarity and authority to your finished article.
\n8
\nYou will need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances as new information
\ncomes to light which is likely to change the final slant or angle of your story. You will
\nalso need to develop the ability to interpret information and its relative weight and
\nimportance.
\nTo write an authoritative article, it is simply not enough to juxtapose a long series of
\ndifferent views and isolated titbits of information. You need to restrict what you use to
\nfacts and opinions which are strictly relevant to the subject, sometimes reflecting the
\nmanner in which they are conveyed to you. Is an interviewee (or Government
\ndepartment) reluctant to speak about the issue? Do those involved appear blas\u00e9,
\narrogant, devious, high-handed? Any subjectivity of this type cannot be included on
\na whim, but backed up by hard evidence. \u201cMr Brown this week was refusing to
\nanswer any calls, but finally issued a short statement through his lawyers stating that
\nit was \u2018inappropriate\u2019 for him to make any comment about his company\u2019s decision at
\nthis stage.\u201d
\nThis is factual, but presented in a way which makes it clear to the readers that Mr
\nBrown is extremely reluctant to talk about the issue \u2013 very different from simply being
\n\u2018unavailable for comment\u2019.
\nWHY INTERVIEW?
\nYou will already be aware that there can be huge differences in the amount of effort
\nexpended on individual features. At one end of the scale, a feature might involve a
\nfew minutes of research, a single straightforward interview and about 40 minutes\u2019
\nworth of actual writing. At the other extreme, you might have to spend hours
\nresearching facts from a variety of sources, carry out a number of in-depth
\ninterviews, spend hours transcribing your notes and even longer crafting a concise
\n600-word article from the huge mountain of information you have amassed.
\nThere\u2019s no getting away from the fact that most features dealing with topical issues
\nare going to involve multiple interviews, simply because there\u2019s usually no one
\nperson who can give you a completely balanced insight into your chosen topic.
\nThere will be exceptions, but only rarely.
\nSo why interview anyone? What\u2019s the point? Wouldn\u2019t it be a lot quicker just to
\ngather all the facts you can from a variety of written sources and string them
\ntogether? The simple answer is that the vast majority of such articles are deadly dull
\n(or read like academic essays). Quotes from real people add vigour and vitality to
\nyour work. They vary the rhythm of the feature, making it easier to read. They add
\nhuman interest, that vital ingredient in all stories. They also add credibility and
\nauthority. Experts may be able to explain a particular complexity in ten short words \u2013
\nand because they are experts, their words count more than yours.
\nJust as importantly, interviews are what make your features unique. Anyone could
\nrehash information they have found online and cobble something together. But who
\nyou choose to speak to, what questions you ask them and how they respond on the
\nday are factors which will set your article apart from anyone else\u2019s. And give you
\ngreater ownership of it!
\n9
\nSingle interviews
\nBy their nature, profiles normally involve an extended individual interview. But for a
\nnews feature, is one interview ever enough? The answer is yes, occasionally. You
\nknow the importance of reflecting all sides of a debate. However, it is possible to
\nproduce legitimate features which only involve speaking to one key person \u2013 usually
\nan individual, who has achieved something single-handedly, is an expert in their field
\nor is a recognised representative for a wider group of people.
\nSuch interviewees may be academics, authors, travellers, explorers or campaigners.
\nThey may have conducted ground-breaking research, ventured to a far-flung corner
\nof the globe, made an exciting new discovery, written a controversial book or
\nspearheaded a particular project. What they are likely to have in common is a
\nparticular expertise, experience, skill or knowledge that allows them to provide
\nunique insights and speak with authority on their chosen subject.
\nIt will often be acceptable for this sort of feature to be one-sided if it is providing a lot
\nof new information to your readers and\/or is creating a new agenda for a subsequent
\ndebate.
\nFor example, if a local scientist is putting forward an intriguing new theory about
\nglobal warming, we will want to hear his views in detail. It\u2019s not necessary at this
\nstage to \u2018balance\u2019 the article by finding another expert to refute each point he makes.
\nBut as professional writers we cannot afford to be na\u00efve. We may need to ask some
\ndifficult questions which help to establish the credibility of our interviewee and put
\ntheir views in perspective. There are other ways of balancing his views in the final
\narticle. For example:
\nMcPherson knows that other scientists have poured scorn on her theory, but that
\ndoesn\u2019t worry her at all. \u201cIt will take time to win people over to my point of view,\u201d she
\nadmits. \u201cI don\u2019t mind. I know I\u2019m right and I\u2019m not in any hurry.\u201d
\nIf you are faced with the sort of news feature that might work as a single interview,
\nyou should ask:
\n\u2022 is the issue more important than the individual?
\n\u2022 will a single interview allow you to tell the whole story, or will the final
\nfeature appear unbalanced?
\n\u2022 would it be a better feature if more views were represented?
\n\u2022 should the finished feature be written as personal profile instead?
\nTwo sides to the story
\nArguments, debates and protests form the basis of countless news stories, but it\u2019s
\nsurprisingly rare to find a feature based on a conflict that can be handled
\nstraightforwardly, simply by speaking to the two sides who appear to be at
\nloggerheads. That\u2019s partly because many rows are self-explanatory and don\u2019t justify
\nfeatures treatment. When they do, the issues involved tend not to be black and
\nwhite, which means canvassing a wider cross-section of opinions.
\n10
\nGetting the whole picture
\nIf you enjoy exploring contentious issues, this is the category for you. But to become
\nan authority on your chosen subject, you may need to do a lot of background
\nresearch and interview quite a few people.
\nHere, the interviews serve a double purpose. Firstly, they are the most direct and
\nefficient way of getting a clear picture in your own mind of what\u2019s going on.
\nSecondly, they provide you with the quotes that will bring clarity and vigour to your
\nfinished story.
\nThis process needn\u2019t automatically be incredibly time-consuming. Often people will
\nbe able to put their views pretty succinctly, and you won\u2019t necessarily be looking for
\nlengthy quotes, simply a couple of sentences summing up an individual\u2019s main
\nconcerns or key argument. If it\u2019s straightforward information you\u2019re after, or a brief
\nresponse to a particular question, a phone call will be adequate. You\u2019ll only need to
\nsee people face to face if the issues are very complex, if you need to see something
\nyourself to understand it better or if you need background \u2018colour\u2019 that can only be
\npicked up first hand.
\nThis contrasts sharply with people-based features, which are very hard to write
\neffectively unless you can actually look your subject in the eye.
\nThe drawback of more complex features is that new writers find that it can be hard to
\nsee the wood for the trees. You will be probably be collating, analysing and
\norganising a fair amount of information and, doing that quickly and efficiently, is one
\nof the fundamental skills of a professional features writer. They make it look
\ndisarmingly easy: one minute they\u2019re asking a few casual questions, the next they\u2019re
\nchurning out a finely crafted, erudite 800-word article that sums up the issue in a
\nnutshell.
\nVox pops
\nYou will all have seen vox pops (from the Latin \u2018vox populi\u2019, or voice of the people)
\nused on news pages in both the local and national press. This is a useful way of
\ngetting the view of the man and woman on the street and usually involves a series of
\none-paragraph soundbites from a cross-section of people on a particular subject,
\nwith small head shots of all those interviewed.
\nIn some papers, this has become a daily feature, with a topical question \u2013
\nsometimes weighty, sometimes trivial \u2013 fired at a set number of individuals. Feature
\nwriters can also find vox pops useful from time to time \u2013 particular when there is a
\nneed to include ordinary people\u2019s views as an antidote to the somewhat high-flown
\nclaims of the experts. This is especially true of contentious issues. It\u2019s all very well
\nthe local councillor or MP claiming they are speaking on behalf of their constituents,
\nbut sometimes it\u2019s interesting to put their claims to the test.
\nVox pops may also be useful in analysing the potential impact of decisions, either on
\nthe public at large or specific target groups. Vox pops are easy to conduct, although
\nif you\u2019re of a shy disposition, it\u2019s a marvellous confidence-booster to have a staff
\nphotographer standing beside you when you\u2019re approaching people in the street.
\n11
\nEmail interviews
\nMany organisations and individuals who claim to be short on time and availability
\nmight suggest you conduct your interview by email. While this may be convenient
\nand even attractive for the writer in terms of simply cutting and pasting the responses
\ndirectly into the piece without the painstaking and time-consuming task of
\ntranscribing an interview, the results are not always satisfactory. The subject, with
\nthe luxury of time, may over-think their answers, resulting in the interview appearing
\nmanufactured and bland. There is no substitute for a live interview where more
\nspontaneous answers allow the writer the opportunity to ask supplementary
\nquestions. This is not possible when a list of carefully constructed answers arrive in
\nthe writer\u2019s inbox.
\nFEATURES STRUCTURE & STYLE
\nThe way you structure a feature and the writing style you adopt are two crucial
\nfactors that will, to a large extent, determine your success in this field of journalism.
\nBoth skills are difficult to teach because there is no straightforward, easily defined
\nformula that will produce a winning result every time. Features deal with the most
\ndiverse range of subjects imaginable, and different newspapers and magazines often
\nhave conflicting demands.
\nStructure
\nFeatures aren\u2019t news stories and aren\u2019t constructed in the same way \u2013 with the
\npossible exception of feature expos\u00e9s, which are, in effect, in-depth news stories.
\nYou have learned how most news stories start with the most important new
\ndevelopment and answer the questions \u2018Who, What, When, Where, Why?\u2019 almost
\nimmediately. They have intense, dramatic intros for maximum impact and then
\ngradually fill in increasing amounts of background information. Their ideal length is
\ndefined by how much each story is \u2018worth\u2019 \u2013 a rather woolly concept for new writers
\nto grasp, particularly as this varies widely from title to title.
\nMost news stories are potentially of universal interest. Ninety per cent of all readers
\nare likely to start reading the front page splash in a newspaper, for example,
\nalthough very few will read the story right through to the final paragraph.
\nFeatures are different. Any particular feature is likely to appeal to a smaller
\npercentage of a publication\u2019s overall readership \u2013 those who are interested in
\nhorses, perhaps, those who care about nurses\u2019 pay or those interested in a profile
\ninterview with a soap star.
\nThe sub-editor\u2019s aim, of course, is to design the page in such an appealing way as to
\nattract the maximum number of readers \u2013 using all the devices at their disposal
\n(headline, standfirst, pictures etc.) to draw readers in. But inevitably the audience is
\nrestricted by a number of factors \u2013 to those who have time to read a full-length
\nfeature, as well as those who may be interested in the specific subject.
\nWith this in mind, features need to be more thoughtfully structured than news stories.
\nThere may be fewer people in the audience, but those readers are more committed
\n12
\nand more likely to read through to the end, which means you need to present them
\nwith a coherent package.
\nIntros should still have impact, but not the same breathless, clipped quality of a
\nbreaking news story. You will still need to answer the Five W questions during the
\ncourse of your article, but not necessarily as quickly as in a news story. Because you
\nare covering more ground, you will need a clear sense of focus to avoid getting
\ndistracted and taking your reader up a blind alley or confusing them with
\nirrelevancies. You will probably have collected a large number of quotes and a huge
\namount of background information.
\nIt\u2019s vital you have a clear sense of direction before you start writing, or you won\u2019t
\nhave a clue what to put in and what to leave out.
\nA good ending is also vital. Your reader has been sufficiently loyal and interested in
\nwhat you\u2019ve got to say to stay with you for 800 words \u2013 don\u2019t let them down by
\nallowing your article to fizzle out like a damp squib. Having said that, the vast
\nmajority of features end on a quote, so try to save a strong, pertinent one for the
\nending, if that\u2019s how you want to conclude it.
\nNow consider the raw material you have gathered in the course of researching your
\nfeature. This will fall into three main categories:
\n\u2022 Facts \u2013 from your background research and interviews
\n\u2022 Quotes \u2013 from the people you have spoken to
\n\u2022 \u2018Colour\u2019 \u2013 your own observations and impressions of people and places.
\nAnd do bear in mind these should be observations as opposed to opinions.
\nIn writing your feature, you may draw on each of these elements, seamlessly
\nmerging them into an integrated whole.
\nYou can\u2019t afford to throw in facts and quotes at random and, if you monotonously
\nwork through every small detail you have been told in chronological order, your
\nfeature will be too long \u2013 and incredibly boring. The first step, naturally, is to select
\nwhat material you are most likely to use in the finished article.
\nStart with the facts since they are likely to provide you with the skeleton of your
\nstory. What do you know and what does the reader need to be told? In what order
\nshould you present the information?
\nOnce you\u2019ve jotted down the key facts, see if you can pair up any of these with good
\nquotes which illustrate the point being made, clarify one person\u2019s stance or add
\nweight and credence to the factual information.
\nIf you need to reflect both sides of an argument or there are several different views
\nwhich need to be reflected, consider whether you need to group these quotes fairly
\nclosely together \u2013 making sure you don\u2019t get your interviewees muddled up in the
\nprocess. Similarly, you will need to decide where and when to introduce a little
\n\u2018colour\u2019 \u2013 what have you witnessed yourself that is relevant to the argument or adds
\na different nuance to a bare fact or quote?
\n13
\nEven when your rough outline starts taking shape, the hardest part will probably be
\nknowing where to start. But don\u2019t spend a long time staring at a blank sheet of paper.
\nTry and get a draft intro of some kind down \u2013 you can always go back and tidy it up
\nlater.
\nFeatures should flow \u2013 they shouldn\u2019t be as staccato as many poorer news stories
\nare, with a series of facts and quotes stapled together with a few overworked
\nconjunctions (and, but and for being the most popular). Different ideas should also
\nbe presented in a logical progression. Don\u2019t flit from subject to subject like a butterfly
\n\u2013 make sure that any significant arguments are fully developed before moving on to
\nyour next theme.
\nTo achieve all this, you will need to be able to switch effortlessly between direct and
\nindirect speech and ensure your writing retains its vigour and pace. And that\u2019s where
\nfeatures style comes in\u2026
\nStyle
\nHalf the battle in developing a good readable features style is getting the structure
\nright. Once you have a clear outline of the skeleton of your article, the words will flow
\nmuch more naturally.
\nDon\u2019t worry too much at this stage about finding your own \u2018voice\u2019 \u2013 that will emerge
\nin due course as you feel increasingly familiar with the writing process.
\nThere are a few pitfalls to avoid, all of them familiar to you by now:
\n\u2022 wasteful words and phrases (padding)
\n\u2022 clich\u00e9s and jargon
\n\u2022 complex or specialist words (often with Latin or Greek roots)
\n\u2022 repetition
\nBefore you start writing, you should know in your own mind whether the purpose of
\nyour article is to entertain as well as inform. This will help you gauge whether the
\nfinished piece should have a light, humorous touch or if the subject matter is so
\nserious that this would be entirely inappropriate. How much analysis is expected of
\nyou? To what extent should you interpret information that is given to you, as
\nopposed to presenting the facts in a very straightforward, non-judgmental way?
\nOnly the features editor who has given you the assignment can help guide you on
\ndelicate matters such as what tone you should adopt, although if you are familiar
\nwith the feature output of your own publication you will probably already have a good
\nidea of exactly what is required.
\nUnless you have been specifically requested to produce a particularly high-flown,
\noffbeat, witty or satirical piece of writing, you will be wise to avoid purple prose. A
\ncommon fault of first-time feature writers, this is basically the temptation to get so
\ncarried away by the excitement of writing a longer article that you pad it full of
\nexpansive phrases, overblown or outdated language and inappropriate flights of
\nfancy.
\n14
\nIt is probably better to start with a more subdued style that is at least accurate and
\ncarefully structured. You may then consider incorporating some of the devices
\nfeature writers use to give their articles character and depth. Some of these are fairly
\nobvious. In a news story, you have been told that putting the words \u201che said\u201d or \u201csaid
\nMr Green\u201d after a direct quote are perfectly adequate in most cases.
\nJust because you are writing a feature, you should resist the temptation to jettison
\nthis simple approach by including a plethora of words like \u201che enthused\u201d and \u201cshe
\nopined\u201d, or clumsy and repetitious inversions: \u201cCommenting on the fact that the
\nfigures had just been released, he said\u2026\u201d
\nEqually, since you are likely to be using more direct quotes than the average news
\nstory, it will sound pretty repetitious if you inject the words \u201che said\u201d or \u201che added\u201d at
\nthe end of each paragraph.
\nYou can get round this by using longer, uninterrupted quotes (as long as it is obvious
\nwho is speaking) or preceding a quotation with a descriptive phrase that helps put it
\nin context (again, as long as it is clear who is speaking):
\nCummings fiddles nervously with his phone while he considers the question.
\nWhen he finally answers, there is still a distinct reticence in his voice at the idea
\nof discussing such intimate matters. \u201cI don\u2019t know that you could really call it an
\naffair. We knew each other for ten years before there was any physical contact
\nbetween us. But we both knew that the relationship we had was very special.\u201d
\nInjecting \u2018colour\u2019 gathered from your own observations is particularly useful in
\ncrafting a lengthy profile piece where only one person is speaking throughout. In
\nsuch examples, there may be reasonably lengthy quotes carried in full, without any
\nform of interruption.
\nThis is perfectly acceptable, particularly when someone is recounting a particular
\nstory or reminiscence.
\nVariety is always the key to a successful features approach, whether in the way you
\njuxtapose direct speech with indirect speech, or in the way you vary the length of
\nyour sentences. Prose which relies entirely on extremely short clipped sentences of
\nalmost identical lengths quickly becomes staccato and unpalatable to read, as well
\nas underestimating the reader\u2019s capacity for comprehension.
\nChecklist
\nWhen attempting to assess the success of your own or other people\u2019s features, it
\nmay help to answer some of the following questions:
\n\u2022 is there a clearly identifiable angle?
\n\u2022 does the feature contain genuine insights?
\n\u2022 does the article flow and demonstrate a logical progression of ideas?
\n\u2022 how well does it combine observation, background information and
\nquotes?
\n15
\n\u2022 does it contain elements of intrigue, drama, colour or revelation?
\n\u2022 does it have an attention-grabbing intro?
\n\u2022 does it have a well-rounded ending?
\n\u2022 does it ask \u2013 and answer \u2013 all the right questions?
\n\u2022 does it use language imaginatively?
\n\u2022 if appropriate, does it contain humour or analysis?
\n\u2022 is the tone appropriate to the subject matter?
\nWhere to find them?
\nOf course devouring as many features as you can and reading them actively and not
\npassively will help you become more familiar with their style and content. The first
\nstep though is to identify them and distinguish them from news stories. That is not as
\neasy as you may think. Printed publications, particularly broadsheets will place many
\nfeatures in their daily supplements or weekend magazines. Tabloids and local dailies
\nand weeklies may put them anywhere but they are more likely to be in the middle or
\nback of the \u2018book\u2019. It is much more difficult to locate them online as they are not
\nalways clearly signposted. Better then to invest in a printed copy whether through an
\napp or the local newsagent.
\nASSIGNMENT NINE
\nStudy two recent feature articles, one published in a national newspaper or website
\nand one in a local\/regional paper \u2013 one a news feature, the other a personal profile \u2013
\nand provide a short appraisal of their strengths and weaknesses (maximum 250
\nwords on each).
\nThe articles or web references must be included with this lesson so please
\nmake sure you do not use websites with a paywall. The following questions
\nmay help focus your thoughts in each case.
\n\u2022 Did you enjoy reading the article? Is this the sort of feature you might normally
\nread?
\n\u2022 Did you feel the article gave you a genuine insight into the issue or personality
\nfeatured? If so, how was this achieved?
\n\u2022 Did you enjoy the writing style? Which aspects of the writing did you admire?
\n\u2022 Do you think the writer asked the right questions? Were they adequately
\nanswered?
\n\u2022 Was the article well structured? Did it convey a logical progression of ideas?
\n\u2022 To what extent \u2013 and how well \u2013 did the article combine background information
\nwith direct quotes and personal observation?
\n\u2022 Did the intro grab your attention? How well did the ending round off the article?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

9. Lesson 9 : Writing Features The different structure and style required for a features article. How to gauge the right approach, focus on the importance of interviews in features…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1288,"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123\/revisions\/1288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shahed.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}