I just read a story from a top reporter in these parts that begins, "Rumors abound that Piers Morgan, a judge on Britain's Got Talent and America's Got Talent, will replace Larry King on CNN," which then goes on to cite a report from Britain's Daily Telegraph.
I have wanted to about this ever since a top columnist around here began a column in April by writing "totally unconfirmed reports" about a leading hotel executive changing jobs.
If I was editing the first story, the lede would have been, "Piers Morgan, a judge on `Britain's Got Talent' and `America's Got Talent,' will replace Larry King on CNN, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported Monday."
If I was editing the second, I would have asked the columnist to be more specific to get something -- anything -- stronger that "totally unconfirmed reports."
To me, in the first instance, what the news is is far more important than "rumors abound." "Rumors abound" is terrible.
In the second instance, despite the columnist's great reputation, I think readers would wonder, "How true is this?"
What would you do?
I have wanted to about this ever since a top columnist around here began a column in April by writing "totally unconfirmed reports" about a leading hotel executive changing jobs.
If I was editing the first story, the lede would have been, "Piers Morgan, a judge on `Britain's Got Talent' and `America's Got Talent,' will replace Larry King on CNN, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported Monday."
If I was editing the second, I would have asked the columnist to be more specific to get something -- anything -- stronger that "totally unconfirmed reports."
To me, in the first instance, what the news is is far more important than "rumors abound." "Rumors abound" is terrible.
In the second instance, despite the columnist's great reputation, I think readers would wonder, "How true is this?"
What would you do?