Niggling and yet seriously...
Consider the difference made by the excision/addition of a single word:
Aggrandizing adjectives were reserved for what came between quotation marks -- eg. Joe Blow said the officer was courageous. In this way, the descriptive is left to the reader, rather than the intrusive and perhaps hectoring writer.
It was important to allow the reader to make judgements. A dead combat soldier, for example, was not prima facie evidence of "heroism." Many may agree with the sentiment, but a news writer was not seeking or presuming or trying to fuel the outlook of the reader. Words are vague and corrupt enough without adding to the stew.
Consider the difference made by the excision/addition of a single word:
TREBES, France (AP) — The Latest on the extremist attack in southern France (all times local):When I was growing up in the news business, the line might have read: "France is mourning the death of a police officer who offered himself up to an Islamic extremist gunman in exchange for a hostage during an attack on a supermarket."
1:30 p.m.
France is mourning the death of a courageous (emphasis added) police officer who offered himself up to an Islamic extremist gunman in exchange for a hostage during an attack on a supermarket.
Aggrandizing adjectives were reserved for what came between quotation marks -- eg. Joe Blow said the officer was courageous. In this way, the descriptive is left to the reader, rather than the intrusive and perhaps hectoring writer.
It was important to allow the reader to make judgements. A dead combat soldier, for example, was not prima facie evidence of "heroism." Many may agree with the sentiment, but a news writer was not seeking or presuming or trying to fuel the outlook of the reader. Words are vague and corrupt enough without adding to the stew.
No comments:
Post a Comment