Same business, different problems.

We're all in the same business. Right?

We research and write editorials to enlighten, entertain, and perhaps influence readers, listeners, and viewers. We submit our editorials to an editorial board for review and comment. We accept - with varying degrees of pain - caustic criticism from our audiences.

But what about the differences? How does the process differ between print editorials and those designed for broadcast?

Obviously, broadcast editorials are written to be verbalized, not read. Short sentences and short clauses are a must, because the verbalizer must breathe every now and then.

Forget those long, complicated sentences. Forget, too, unfamiliar words. The listener does not have time to search through his or her mental vocabulary; if the meaning is not at the level of instant recall, then the word is wasted, because more words come along without pause.

And while you're at it, forget words you or your announcer have trouble pronouncing. If you stumble over "particularly" or slow down when you say it aloud, you had better use "especially" . . . or change the sentence.

And never write "it's not" when you can write "it isn't." (Say it aloud.)

The same thing applies to numbers. Although statistics and figures are great tools for making an argument, listeners cannot easily keep numbers separate in their minds. A string of numerical references tends to blur so that listeners can't distinguish whether it was $6 billion for schools and $4.5 billion for prisons - or the other way around. In a broadcast editorial, the rule of thumb is that two or three numerical references in an editorial is about the maximum allowed.

You'd be surprised, too, how many folks have trouble with percentages. Readers know what 78% means, roughly, but they have to stop and think about it for half a second. In broadcast, they don't have a chance to stop - even for half a second. We're better off to say "about four of every five" or, better yet, "most."

Another big difference is length. Broadcasters are limited by the time scheduled into the daily broadcast log for their editorials. In television, those time limits are unyielding. Radio has a little more flexibility.

Time is often scheduled a day or two in advance, so you don't have much room for variation. In my own case, I have 90 seconds. At my reading speed, that's 247 words, on average, including four words for a title. Every editorial I write is 247 words long, and I've written almost five thousand 247-word editorials. I can't go longer because I don't have the time, and if I go shorter, station management will soon begin to see an opportunity for one more 30-second advertising spot.

I never have to "stretch" an editorial; I always have to squeeze by cutting words, even sentences. And in almost every case, the cutting improves the piece.

You soon learn not to use "that," or "on the other hand," or some of the other pleasant but unnecessary verbiage found in most conversation. You'll notice several sentences in this article begin with "but" or "and" rather than "therefore" or "consequently." The words are shorter, and they break a complex single sentence into two parts.

My high school English teacher may not have liked it, but it works for conversation.

Broadcast editorials are, by necessity, more conversational than print editorials. Print is a more formal medium than broadcast. Although I try hard to make certain my editorials are grammatically correct, I know that listeners will not have the chance to criticize my punctuation. You'll see quite a few ellipses, dashes, and other punctuation shortcuts in broadcast editorials. (We distribute by mail more than 300 printed copies of our editorials each week. Most are on a mailing list, but we also mail copies on request.)

Another difference between print and broadcast is audience. I have no research to prove this, but I suspect the difference here is significant.

Print editorials appeal primarily to a very literate, concerned group of readers who take the time to find the editorials and read them. Broadcast editorials reach everyone who is listening at the time. They cannot choose to hear only the editorials with which they agree. The listener or viewer is required to take action to avoid the editorial - changing the station or leaving the room.

Therefore, the broadcast editorial audience encompasses a broader spectrum of individuals. There is good and bad in this phenomenon. It's good to have a large audience; it's bad when portions of that audience turn their anger about the editorial into anger at the station . . . and turn it off.

Finally, another big difference is the loss of anonymity. If the writer is also the voice of the editorial, personal privacy is sacrificed. Listeners recognize voices as easily as viewers recognize faces, perhaps more easily. Everyone the broadcast writer meets has a suggestion for a future editorial or a criticism of a past editorial - from the person on the street, to the waiter in the restaurant, to the teller at the bank. We like to think we're objective, but after a few confrontations in the supermarket, you think twice about the next editorial on gun control.

These are a few of the differences between print and broadcasting. There are more. Still, those of us who sit down to write editorials have more unifying concerns than dividing differences.

NCEW member Don Gale is vice president for news and public affairs at KSL AM/TV in Salt Lake City.