1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A bit much, NYT?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, May 17, 2017.

  1. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

  2. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    No. Never.
     
  3. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

  4. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Why? The idea that writing must be completely objective -- or seem so -- is a farce of the first order. A little floral language goes a long way, but sticking to a rote recitation of the facts (who, what, where, when, how) denies the fact that news events often arouse passionate responses in readers. It's always a balance between describing an event and not editorializing too much. But I don't agree that purple prose has no place in a new story.
     
  5. Editude

    Editude Active Member

    Yes, adjectives and adverbs are a daily push/pull among NYT editors, assignment and copy, and writers. Pitiless NYT editors, in this case.
     
  6. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Not editorializing too much? Any at all is "too much."

    You're not trying to win writing contests or "arouse passionate responses in readers." You're trying to inform people what happened and what it means to their lives as clearly as you can.
     
  7. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    The events I'm saying arouse passion in people who observe them. To cloak those events in a dispassionate cloth is disingenuous
     
  8. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    "To cloak those events in a dispassionate cloth" is a news reporter's DUTY.
     
    YankeeFan and JimmyHoward33 like this.
  9. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Come on, dad, can't we sprinkle in an adjective or two, just so we don't bore our readers and ourselves to death?
     
  10. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    I will make determinations on a case-by-case basis, son.
     
  11. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Your responses prompted me to go back and read the Times' story about the JFK assassination.

    KENNEDY IS KILLED BY SNIPER AS HE RIDES IN CAR IN DALLAS; JOHNSON SWORN IN ON PLANE

    Straightforward all the way except when it possibly describes Jackie as saddened or people as stunned.

    Then contrast it with the Times' write-up for 9/11

    Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and Hit Pentagon

    1. Hijackers rammed jetliners into each of New York's World Trade Center towers yesterday, toppling both in a hellish storm of ash, glass, smoke and leaping victims, while a third jetliner crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia. There was no official count, but President Bush said thousands had perished, and in the immediate aftermath the calamity was already being ranked the worst and most audacious terror attack in American history.
    I wasn't alive for the JFK assassination, but everyone who was always says they remember where they were when they heard. From that Times write-up, you don't really get a sense of the gravity of the situation. I mean, those first few grafs are just so sterile. The 9/11 write-up strikes a better balance for me. Would you really suggest that it'd read better or properly assess the event by ending the lead with "toppling both"?
     
  12. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    No. 1, if a reader doesn't sense the gravity of a sitting president being shot and killed, a few flowery adjectives aren't going to help.

    No. 2, the 9/11 lede:
    • I'd get rid of "hellish" and "leaping victims." They aren't "leaping" any more -- they're in the rubble. Change to "bodies."
    • Change "had perished" to "were killed."
    • That last clause is gobbledygook. Who "ranked" it? What was the criteria used to determine its audaciousness? Audaciousness is subjective and the coordination of the attack is described in detail in the next graf. Strike it.
    • If you're referring to the expected body count, then say "in the immediate aftermath the calamity was already expected to be the deadliest terror attack in American history."
     
    SFIND likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page