Can you write better than a 5th grader?

Our local paper printed an unsigned editorial the other day. This is just a guess, but I think it must have been Take Your Daughter to Work Day. I think the editor let his 5th grader write it.

The aim of the piece was to encourage citizens to be watchful and report suspicious activity to the proper authorities. I agree. I'd like to report that someone is impersonating a journalist.

A real journalist would not write, "Everyone should contribute to the lowering of crime and in making communities safer. That's why our law enforcement officers need everyone's help." Let's just analyze this bit of wisdom. First, we'll reverse it to check the logic. Law enforcement officers need everyone's help because we should all contribute to the lowering of crime. Doesn't quite make sense to me. Maybe they need our help because they aren't omnipresent, but they don't need our help because we should contribute. We should contribute because they need our help. Second, if we should contribute TO the lowering of crime, why should we contribute IN making our communities safer? Third, I have noticed that elementary students like the "ings" -- "lowering," "making." I like to get rid of the "ings": Everyone should make the effort to lower crime and make our communities safer.

The imposter says, "Criminals start small and if not caught continue to delve deeper into that type of life." Not all criminals do that. Some are so guilt-stricken at their first offence that they never offend again. Some remain petty criminals all their lives - perhaps never stealing more than candy bars. Some criminals start big -- she was such a nice lady except for that time she put rat poison in her husband's morning cocoa, then buried him under the petunias.

Then we are told, "The more eyes on potential crime threats will result in more criminals being caught and a reduction in criminal activity." Huh?

And get this bit of knowledge no one else seems to have, "Someone, perhaps many someones, passed by while the crimes were occurring or looked out their windows to see someone stealing their neighbor's air conditioning unit." Maybe I just don't understand the criminal mind, but I always thought they tried to hide what they were doing. No criminal with a modicum of sense is going to steal an air conditioner when he thinks someone is watching him (unless he's dressed as the a/c repairman, in which case he wouldn't be suspicious, would he?). And I don't know about the writer's neighbors, but mine would surely call 911 if they saw someone taking my things. (However, I used to live in a neighborhood where the neighbors were probably the ones doing the taking).

Another bit of high IQ logic: "Police often ask for the public's help in solving crimes because they need that help in preventing crime." Why would the police ask for the public's help if they didn't need it? A real journalist would have given us the "why" instead of restating the obvious.

For a 5th-grader, this is a very good attempt at writing; but for a professional, it's a crime!

How many graphics can you get on a TV screen?

To quote Andy Rooney, "Ya know what bugs me?" It seems all the tv news shows are in a competition to see who can get the most graphics up on the screen. At least one-third of the screen is taken up by that distracting news crawl, the text of what the reporter is saying, the title of what the reporter is reporting on, the temp and time, the traffic report, plus the "live" disclaimer over some correspondent standing in front of an empty courthouse in the freezing cold at 6 a.m. because her story happens to involve the district attorney -- there's nothing going on at the courthouse, and the courthouse really has nothing to do with her story, but for some reason it's important to report this story "live from the courthouse." In a story one day about a newborn panda, the news anchors kept oohing and aahing over the video of the cub, but the tv viewers couldn't see the panda, because with the camera angle, the cub was at the bottom of the shot, and the graphics covered him up.

The news crawl itself is an irritation. Either I can listen to the news, or I can read the crawl -- I can't multitask well enough to do both. Besides, half the time I'm reading the crawl, I get partially through a topic and the crawl disappears for a commercial, and I have no idea how the story ends. How frustating is that?!! I've heard the argument that all the graphics benefit those who are deaf. I would hazard a guess that a vast majority of those who are deaf avail themselves of closed-captioning.

Then there's that horrible thing that's developed in recent years -- the little pop-up figures promoting another program right in the middle of your favorite sitcom. I have a TV Guide! I don't need no stinkin' pop-ups!

Can You Pronunce Pronounciation?

I heard a talk show host yesterday on national TV preface an introduction with, "Forgive my proNOUNCiation . . ." I'll forgive her proNOUNCiation if she'll learn that the word is proNUNciation.

I also got my daily quota of forwarded emails -- my computer will explode if I open an email with "Merry Christmas" in the subject line, there's a man dressed up like a woman hiding under my car at the mall, if I courteously flash my headlights I'll be murdered, a 30 foot alligator ate a golfer with the pictures to prove it, forward this if I love Jesus or my nose will fall off in 3 days, sign this petition against Madaline Murray O'Hair and send it to the White House, and on and on. It's an easy matter to check these things out at Snopes.com, but I guess people would rather believe the sensational story than be told the truth. In fact, I sometimes reply to the senders and tell them the real story, and I have more than once received the "mind your own business" response. What really gets me is the recycled emails -- they never die! What's more, I tend to receive the same recycled emails from the same person. I don't know if he forgets he's sent them to me already, or if he just indiscriminately hits the forward button on everything. I received one this week that dates from 1999. Over the years, this particular email has appeared in my inbox numerous times, but usually with an addition or some change from the previous time I received it. They tend to mutate as they pass from computer to computer -- names change, locations change, the friend of a friend becomes the sister-in-law of the mother-in-law -- who changes them and why? And who makes them up to begin with?

Can You Point to the Defendant?

I didn't see much in yesterday's news worth commenting on, but there are a couple of other things that really bug me.

The first is an OTC medication I buy. I noticed a few months ago that the cardboard box had a "tamper evident seal" on one end. The other end of the box was not sealed in any manner. It had only a flip top lid with no glue and no plastic seal. I thought perhaps I had picked up a box that just missed getting the seal, or that someone had removed the seal. So I checked all the boxes on the shelf. Not one box had the seal on both ends. Maybe the machine that seals the boxes was out of seals, so I checked the next month. Same thing. So I emailed the company asking them the reasoning behind sealing only one end of the box. I could just envision the pointy-haired boss from "Dilbert" saying, "We can save half the cost of seals if we seal only one end of the box!" Their reply was that starting this month, shipments will have seals on both ends of the boxes, but they didn't explain why both ends haven't been sealed before.

Have you seen the Swiffer commercial that is set in a courtroom? The witness says she saw it "on the kitchen floor." After a gasp from the courtroom, the attorney asks the witness, "Can you point to the defendant?" Well, duh! Everyone in the courtroom can point to the defendant. What does that prove? I know it's just a commercial, but they should try to get it right!

What this blog is about

My pet peeve is inaccuracies in journalism -- grammatical errors, misuse of words, erroneous reporting, sensationalism. So I decided to start this blog to highlight some of the errors. I hope others will contribute to the discussion with errors they find. I don't claim to be an expert on the english language, and I am not a journalist, so don't be surprised if you see mistakes in some of my posts. But those who claim to be professionals should do a better job than I do. Our local newspaper is rife with inaccuracies, so most of my examples will probably come from there. You'll probably also frequently see my opinions on stories in the news, both from the print media and radio and television. That being said, let's start it off with this from yesterday's edition of my hometown newspaper.

Reporting on a local young man who has landed a role in a popular musical, the reporter tells us that he is "a former North Lamar High School graduate." My question is, "Did they revoke his diploma for some reason?" If not, then he may be a former student of North Lamar High School, but he is still a graduate.