"30" to indicate the end of newspaper copy [edited title]

[Ken Bauer]

[font=Verdana]I am a senior journalism student at Eastern Illinois University and I have a question that the professors here can't answer. Actually, they almost all have an answer but those answers are all different. In journalism it is commonplace to use the number -30- at the end of a story. It is used so that copy-editors will know that a story is finished and there isn't more information on another page somewhere.

How did this use of the number -30- come to be?

Here are some of the answers I have received so far:
-The first wire (telegraphed) message ever sent to a press association (during the Civil War) was 30 words long and the number of words was included at the end of those messages so that operators would know they didn't miss a word or two. The use of 30 just became the standard.

-Back before te typewriter was commonplace and stories were written in longhand- an x marked the end of a sentence, xx marked the end of a paragraph and xxx marked the end of a story. xxx is the Roman numeral 30.

-the maximum number of slugs that could be cast on typesetting machines was 30 per line so the number came to symbolize "the end" in the same fashion that 86 has become today's standard term for scrapping something.

-Along those same lines it is theorized that the use of the number originates from the founding of the Associated Press. The organization limited correspondences on the new wire service to 30 per day. once again, 30 became the standard to symbolize "the end."

My personal theory is that with all these reasons why -30= is used it just works better than anything else. I mean there are already four reasons listed here and they all may have a little truth to them so maybe they collectively gave birth to the use of the number -30- at the end of sotries.

Still, it really bugs me not knowing where this widely used number got its start.

Ken Bauer
Eastern Illinois University

[Jonathan Chance]

From my 'Writing for Broadcast' class I learned that it was that early newspapers limited stories to 30 lines to fit more local and human interest material on each page rather than in depth stuff.

So when things were submitted the 30 line mark was annotated with '-30'' to indicate where the story was likely to be ended by editorial. Eventually it simply became the end of the story, regardless.

[duffer]

I hope you find a real answer to the "30" question, but it may be a little disappointing. A lot of Rolling Rock drinkers were crushed when numerology came Cecil's way.

Take it for what it's worth.

[bibliophage]

Welcome to the SDMB, Ken Bauer.

I have edited the title of this thread to make it more descriptive. Descriptive titles are appreciated for a variety of reasons.

bibliophage
moderator GQ
______________________________

I found a discussion of eleven different explanations for the "30" from the Arizona Newspapers Association

[bibliophage]

And here's some more ideas: http://www.saila.com/journalism/thirty.shtml

[samclem]

One of my favorite, authoratative sites is The Mavens' Word of the Day. They probably have the most definitive explanation at this point, unless someone comes up with print cites that are better:

The use of thirty for the end of a story is an old piece of journalism and telegraphy slang that first appears in the late nineteenth century. In order to signal the end of a transmission, it was necessary to have a code for the end of a transmission that was unmistakably not part of the transmission itself. This code was the sequence XXX, which, many decades before the rise of the pornographic film industry, was unlikely to occur as a part of the actual story.

[pulykamell]

I've heard the XXX explanation before, but sniffing of urban legend I checked into it.

"30" is an old telegraph code for EOM (end of message). Lemme see if I can find a site.

Here's one site.

Ya know, I coulda swear this was the definitive answer, but searching on the subject gives me the impression that there is some argument over the issue.

[pulykamell]

I had another source for this, that I offered in this thread, but the original web page is no longer online.

[pulykamell]

Ah ha!

Check out Western Unions "92" telegraph code from 1859

30 No more - the end

Also, on the same page, there's "1864 Wood's Telegraphic Numerals"

30 Finish

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Ah ha!

Check out Western Unions "92" telegraph code from 1859



Also, on the same page, there's "1864 Wood's Telegraphic Numerals"

It should be noted that a telegrapher would never send "30" as "XXX". My guess is that Mavens is wrong. To this day some of these codes are used by ham radio operators, who probably are the last folks today using Morse code. (While using such may seem archaic, it just so happens under weak signal conditions Morse code may be the only way to get a message through. Also, Morse uses very little bandwidth. Bandwidth in the shortwave ham bands is quite scarce, and far more amateur radio operators can communicate in the same frequency range if they use Morse.) While I guess it is possible that some telegraph operators, while they sent and received "30" wrote it out as "XXX" to be more user friendly to editors, this just doesn't make much sense. Any editor could learn "30" meant EOM as easily as "XXX". I just can't see telegraphers altering the way they did things to please newspaper editors. While newspapers used telegraphy for reports, telegraphy wasn't created with just newspapers in mind. Admittedly "88" (hugs and kisses) is an exception. This was invented by telegraphers handling messages between lovers or married people. This would be commonly written out as the average person wouldn't know what "88" meant. However, a professional editor would quickly learn what "30" meant.

[pulykamell]

I've always felt that "XXX" was a kind of backformation of the telegraph code "30." Somebody just noticed that 30=Roman XXX and either started using that to end stories, or offered it up as an explanation to the source of "30." FTR, I've never seen -XXX- at the end of a story, only -30-.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

I've always felt that "XXX" was a kind of backformation of the telegraph code "30." Somebody just noticed that 30=Roman XXX and either started using that to end stories, or offered it up as an explanation to the source of "30." FTR, I've never seen -XXX- at the end of a story, only -30-.

This is why I doubt Mavens. The telegraph code is indeed "30" and not "XXX". XXX and 30 in Morse are different. In Morse you just end with 30, and quit sending. The operator on the other end quickly realizes this means EOM. A news report is unlikely to end with 30 as much as XXX. A telegraph operator at a newspaper would just write down what he received. As the sender would have sent 30 rather than XXX, 30 is what he'd jot down.

[Ken Bauer]

I'm wondering if a time-line analysis of this might be in order. If that is acceptable, does anyone know if there is an explanation offered dating before the 1859 Western Union thing. We just might have to pull out the "ye' ole' carbon-dating test kit" to see which of these answers has seniority.

All of the explanations offered make some sense. The one thing I didn't see any replies on was the assertion of x meaning end-of-sentence, xx meaning end-of-paragraph, and xxx meaning end-of-story. Later to be adapted into -30-.

Also, I'll probably be subscribing to the board soon. I think this board is really cool.

[pulykamell]

I've feeling that 1859 is getting close to the earliest source for "30."
One possible earlier source is to find a copy of "The National Telegraphic Review and Operators' Guide," published in 1857. I know that has a list of telegraphic codes in it, as well, but I can't find anything online about it, except for sourcing the telegraphic code "73."

My gut instinct tells me that "30" comes from any of these telegraphic codes. I doubt there is a source that predates the invention of the telegraph.

[jimpatro]

I remember "learning" in a journalism class that "30" meant thirty days. Originating with monthly columns or reports. Kinda of a "talk to you in 30 days" tag.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Ken Bauer

I'm wondering if a time-line analysis of this might be in order. If that is acceptable, does anyone know if there is an explanation offered dating before the 1859 Western Union thing. We just might have to pull out the "ye' ole' carbon-dating test kit" to see which of these answers has seniority.

All of the explanations offered make some sense. The one thing I didn't see any replies on was the assertion of x meaning end-of-sentence, xx meaning end-of-paragraph, and xxx meaning end-of-story. Later to be adapted into -30-.

Also, I'll probably be subscribing to the board soon. I think this board is really cool.

According to Mavens, 30 (or XXX) wasn't used in journalism until telegraphy became available. Thus there wouldn't have been an era where reporters wrote XXX at the bottom of the story to make it absolutely clear that the last page of the story didn't get lost in the paperwork. I just find it hard to believe that telegraphers learned "30" from newspapers sending reports, and not the other way around. At the very beginning telegraphers would have had to devise some code system between themselves for basic things like EOM. Why would newspaper editors devise their own code system when the telegraphers had already beaten them to it?

BTW, for anyone unaware, telegraphers in this era would just physically write down what was sent at the other end. The telegrapher wouldn't know that 30 being sent at the end wasn't the start of a new sentence until after the pause. Because in the news business reports are time sensitive, as soon as the 30 was received and written down, the report would have been rushed by a messenger to the editor. Think here of a boy/young man taking the paper the telegraph operator handed him, and literally running to the editor with it. With the 30 still on the paper at the end. Rather than crossing out this procedural sign, as time was of the essence the telegrapher would just leave it intact, where the editor who got the report would just ignore it. The job of the telegrapher was just to receive and send messages as quick as possible. The job of the editor was to know what the telegraph procedural signs were, and to edit them out of the final copy. The job is called "editor" for a good reason.

I find it hard to believe that telegraph operators would have ever used x meaning end-of-sentence. Would it not be a lot easier to agree on a code that meant "period"? The only way a telegrapher could know x meant period would be a pause after the x. The whole idea behind telegraphy is speed of communication. Given that periods are all kinds of common in English language communication, requiring lots of pauses to get a message through would slow things down a lot. Morse code has a period: .-.-.-

Why not just use that rather than x?

[AskNott]

One more 30 tale:
The Teletype machine (according to this story) had two letters that would ring a bell at the recieving end. A string of exclamation points (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) would signal a really hot story. Three Xs would signal the end of a story. Hey, it might even be true.

I tried to submit a much longer post, but I got a "cannot find server."

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by AskNott

One more 30 tale:
The Teletype machine (according to this story) had two letters that would ring a bell at the recieving end. A string of exclamation points (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) would signal a really hot story. Three Xs would signal the end of a story. Hey, it might even be true.

I tried to submit a much longer post, but I got a "cannot find server."

The teletype machine came later. Morse code started out with human beings sending on a key, with the other operator listening to the clickety-clicks.

http://www.thocp.net/hardware/histor...velopment_.htm

That mentions the teletype machine originating in the early 1900s. In this thread others have posted citations that 30 was used as EOM in Morse code as early as 1859. If XXX was used by teletype operators (quite possible), surely they got that idea from telegraphers who were using 30 for EOM for the last 4 decades or so. For the reason I pointed out in a previous post, newspaper editors would have long been used to seeing 30 as EOM because speed issues would have meant that the telegraph operator wouldn't take time to scribble out this procedural sign before passing on the story to an editor. Back then (and I guess to this day) "news" was a business where time was of the essence. Long ago newspaper boys really did yell "EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!" after the paper released an extra edition because the story came in after the day's edition was laid to bed and printed. Today many think of "newspaper" as a thing they log onto the Internet and read. Not so in the 1800s.

[pulykamell]

Another interesting note is that in Morse, the EOT prosign (procedural signal) is ...-.-, which is written either as SK (with a line over it) or VA (with a line over it). In American Morse, the sign for "30" is ...-. —(long dash). In other words, the Morse prosign for EOT is almost exactly the same as "30" in American Morse. The websites I've perused through say that "SK" comes from the old "30" code.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Another interesting note is that in Morse, the EOT prosign (procedural signal) is ...-.-, which is written either as SK (with a line over it) or VA (with a line over it). In American Morse, the sign for "30" is ...-. —(long dash). In other words, the Morse prosign for EOT is almost exactly the same as "30" in American Morse. The websites I've perused through say that "SK" comes from the old "30" code.

Yep.

http://www.ac6v.com/73.htm

"The prosign "SK" with the letters run together derives from the American Morse "30", which was didididahdit daaaaaaaah (extra long dah is zero in that code)."

One thing makes me wonder. Can anyone provide a citation where reporters are said to have been writing "XXX" at the end of their reports *before* telegraphy came into use? The first practical use of telegraphy was in 1844, when a line was constructed between Baltimore and Washington. The first message, sent on May 24, 1844, was "What hath God wrought!" Thus if someone can find a novel from before this time where a mention is made of a reporter adding after his story "XXX" on the final page, then it's a safe bet that journalists didn't pick up "30" from telegraphers. And either the telegraphers got the idea for "30" from journalists putting XXX at the bottom of reports, or the 30 prosign was created independently.

I can't find any mention of telegraphers ever using XXX as a prosign meaning EOM. And it seems all kinds of unlikely to me reporters would start writing XXX at the end of reports after seeing 30 at the end of all wire stories coming in. However, I can easily imagine telegraphers changing XXX on reports into the prosign 30. Telegraphers were already in the habit of using 2 digit numeric prosigns, and might have balked at the lengthy XXX as a prosign. (It makes sense to keep frequently used prosigns as short as possible.) Mavens may have found a source where journalists were said to add XXX at the end of reports, and just didn't realize that this was never sent that way telegraphically. (The reporters may have started doing this so that if an editor lost the last page of a story they handed in, the absence of XXX on the last page would have tipped off the editor he didn't have the whole report.)

[pulykamell]

I wouldn't give the Mavens site any credibility for this particular question, because their earliest "citation" is from the late nineteenth-century, is unsourced, and contains a dubious bit of information that "XXX" was used as a prosign. We have a mid-19th century, sourced, definitive cite that states "30" was used as a prosign by at least two different standards.

It makes most sense to me that -30- was a purely arbitrary number assigned to mean EOT. But it does remain possible that "XXX" was some sort of pre-telegraphic standard for "end of story," and when Western Union developed their 92 code, somebody realized XXX=30 and assigned EOT that number. I doubt it, but it is possible.

Also, I studied journalism at Medill, and nowhere have I ever encountered anyone who ended stories with "XXX." It was always a circled "-30-".

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

I wouldn't give the Mavens site any credibility for this particular question, because their earliest "citation" is from the late nineteenth-century, is unsourced, and contains a dubious bit of information that "XXX" was used as a prosign. We have a mid-19th century, sourced, definitive cite that states "30" was used as a prosign by at least two different standards.

It makes most sense to me that -30- was a purely arbitrary number assigned to mean EOT. But it does remain possible that "XXX" was some sort of pre-telegraphic standard for "end of story," and when Western Union developed their 92 code, somebody realized XXX=30 and assigned EOT that number. I doubt it, but it is possible.

Also, I studied journalism at Medill, and nowhere have I ever encountered anyone who ended stories with "XXX." It was always a circled "-30-".

I tried e-mailing the author of that piece. Dunno if she is with this site anymore. (Although a Google search indicates this woman still is alive and out there.) I asked for a source for "This code was the sequence XXX, which, many decades before the rise of the pornographic film industry, was unlikely to occur as a part of the actual story." It does seem plausible that this was done back then, as XXX just wouldn't occur in a news report, and the mere sight of it would make it obvious that it wasn't part of the story. Unlike 30, which frequently would appear in news reports. The problem is her claim "In order to signal the end of a transmission, it was necessary to have a code for the end of a transmission that was unmistakably not part of the transmission itself." I can find no citation that telegraphers ever used XXX as a prosign. This would never have been a problem for a professional telegrapher. The 30 after being sent is followed by a pause waiting for the receiving operator to reply. The ordinary reply would be R - all received OK. The lack of an appropriate reply would make it obvious to the sender something was wrong.

If XXX ever was used by journalists, it had to be quite a long time ago. I remember an old black in white film about a newspaper titled "-30-". However, the way this Mavens' writer phrases things, it comes off as if she was basing this on some authoratative, unnamed source.

Are there any website bulletin boards where seasoned newspaper editors hang out? If XXX ever was used by reporters as she claims because it couldn't possibly be confused with part of the story, the might know this and have a cite backing up that claim? Although I'd think a 30 in a circle would stand out just as well.

BTW, to the OP: You can dismiss that explanation: "The first wire (telegraphed) message ever sent to a press association (during the Civil War) was 30 words long and the number of words was included at the end of those messages so that operators would know they didn't miss a word or two. The use of 30 just became the standard." In this thread an authoritative cite was posted that telegraphers were using 30 as a prosign in 1859. The US Civil War didn't start until 2 years later.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

The "SK" that pulykamell mentioned is still used as the "end of conversation" code for TDD communications among deaf people. "SK," incidentally, stands for "stop keying," according to the TDD directory.

I've never seen XXX used for end-of-story. I was taught -30- (always on a line by itself). If Morse was using 30 (not XXX) almost 150 years ago, I think that kills the whole XXX part of the discussion.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

I've never seen XXX used for end-of-story. I was taught -30- (always on a line by itself). If Morse was using 30 (not XXX) almost 150 years ago, I think that kills the whole XXX part of the discussion.

Not necessarily. It does make sense that before the days of telegraphy that *something* was used as an end of story marker. If the last page got was accidentally lost between the editor and the typesetter, the lack of this end of story marker would be a tip off.

What is needed is someone to find a cite saying what, if anything, was being used as an end of story marker before the telegraph was around. Many sources claim that XXX was being used, and that later was changed to -30-. That XXX is the Roman numeral for 30 might be total coincidence, and whoever created these prosigns randomly choose 30 for end of message. However, nobody making the claim for XXX has ever provided a cite. I checked the Google Usenet archives, and all I found on this looks like wild guessing. Weren't there any instructional manuals before 1844 that told reporters exactly what to put at the end of a story? Or books written by newpaper folks saying what they put at the end of stories? Heck, I'd have thought that there would still be the original story copy left of some early 1800s news stories. Such as those that were about a great tragedy, an important political event, etc. that someone saved for posterity. If XXX was ever used as an end of story marker, there ought to be some proof still around documenting it.

[pulykamell]

Well, I've emailed some mass communication history professors. We'll see if we can get any response. I'm just wondering whether it was even necessary in pre-telegraph days to come up with end-of-story markers like "XXX" or not. I would have guessed a simple "END" would do, but journalism is full of strange traditions and conventions, so it is entirely possible "XXX" was used as an ending marker. Although my guess is that it never was.

[samclem]

Thanks for all the input.

I'm gonna send this thread over to the American Dialect Society Mailing List.

They have more electronic databases than I, and some people who might have ideas on this.

I'll report back if anything is offered that cites things from the mid-1800's.