Reading for the Week

The first reading for this week is Chapter 8 in News Reporting and Writing. In order to discuss the other readings in more detail, I will keep this discussion brief. The chapter discusses how to be the best writer possible. Readability in writing is one of the most important skills that a journalist can have. In order to be a good writer, however, it is imperative that a journalist is first a good reporter who gathers accurate facts and is diligent in information-seeking. The elements of "good" writing are as follows: be precise (avoid biased language), use correct grammar and punctuation, be coherent, use concrete examples, show them with details, and use figures of speech that relate to readers. Of course, in my opinion, the way in which a story should be written depends on the story, so I think that a good journalist must develop the skill of deciphering this as well.
The next reading is "Politics and the English Language," an essay by George Orwell. Orwell is very specific in his critiques of other authors, and he has precise methods for "good" writing. His first criticism is articulated: "It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." In other words, laziness breeds carelessness in writing. He identifies users of the English language as "us" meaning that he is seeing trends in the writing of all people in this nation. Orwell takes issue with the following things: dying metaphors, operators, pretentious diction, and meaningless words. Through this, it is evident that he favors precise language that doesn't "try too hard" to sound complex and vivid. Orwell also claims that political writing has little opportunity to be of great quality unless it recites a view point of someone, and does not spit out "party lines." He likens this type of writing to a recitation in church - something that is so memorized that it loses emotion in most cases. Political writing must be vivid and passionate if it is to be good. While I would agree with this statement, I think that some drab political writing is necessary, because it is important for people to form their own opinions concerning the topic in question.
In conclusion, Orwell develops a standard for good writing, a number of guidelines for improvement. They are:
i. never use a metaphor that you are used to seeing in print
ii. never use a long word where a short one is sufficient
iii. always cut a word out when possible.
iv.never use jargon when you can use simplified English language
v.break any of the rules before saying something "outright barbarous"
As a student, I would agree with most of these guidelines. Language that is too complex does nothing but take up extra time of the reader. I think that the collective intelligence of this nation could be brought upward with the elimination of so-called "pretentious" writing. This is especially true in journalism - we are a service to the public with information, not an extremely complex medium for deciphering. It is imperative that we remember this and adhere to the rules set forth by Orwell.
The next reading was "The Five Characteristics of Scholarly Prose." Before I begin a discussion of them, I will list them for reference.
i. Academic prose emphasizes nouns, not verbs. (Ex: A fumigation occurred)
ii. Academic proses uses static verbs instead of action verbs. (Ex: The field was fumigated by the farmer)
iii. Inflation and Embellishment (Ex: small, faunal species)
iv. Long,
v. Complex Sentences ( Ex: In so far as manifestations of infestation by a small faunal species were evident in the residential facilities provided for the agricultural laborers, an unwillingness to occupy, utilize, or in any manner inhabit the facilities was therefore demonstrated by the aforementioned laborers.) It is an interesting contrast between journalism and academic writing. It is almost the exact opposite of Orwell because it suggests wordiness and the rearrangement of words. It would be difficult for a trained journalist to get used to this style. I think that it is more difficult to write academically because it is a laboring procedure to find words that embellish a statement, instead of giving raw facts. Again, I feel that if we are a society that wants to have information readily available to the public, we should adjust writing so that it can be read by the general public. A more informed public is a better global situation. I do understand the basis for academic writing, but I think that journalists should adhere more closely to Orwell's suggestions.
The final reading is the report on the Incident at Three Mile Island. The Staff Report contains an analysis of how the crisis was handled by the media. Pages 165-166 discuss the errors, in detail, including apologies from people who had miscalculated damages. For example, Mattson explains his error, "My practical knowledge on this kind of situation is not as good as Victor's." Next came an account of how information had been censored during the event. Met Ed had issued an "internal update" about the size of the bubble with a special note about not informing the press. The information was then, of course, leaked by one broadcaster and the story was picked up. "In sum, the information about the bubble released by Metropolitan Edison and the NRC was inadequate and contradictory. It was inadequate because the NRC and Met Ed displayed an inability to provide complete information phrased for a nontechnical audience of reporters" (167). I can understand this to a point, but I also feel that it is the job of a reporter to disseminate information so that it can easily deciphered by readers. If this requires outside research, then that research should be performed.
The next issue with the coverage of the issue is the lack of communication between experts. The experts did not coordinate their efforts, and thus, they were not able to provide consistent, accurate information.
Nevertheless, the article identifies the reasons why coverage of this issue was so vital. They are uniqueness, fear, geography, conflicting information, coincidence, potential for catastrophe, and energy consciousness. I would argue that the public's fear is the number one reason why it is so important to get this story out to people.
I was glad to read the section about how journalists acted resourcefully to try and understand the issue at hand. Peter Stoler of TIME for example, went to a Harrisburg library for a metallurgy text so that he could learn more about the scientific aspects. It is a journalist's duty to do this.
Next, the issue of sensationalism arises. Jeff Bitzer, a TV reporter at a local station says, "A lot of people here thought the national and international media blew it all out of proportion." This reflects what the people of a small town go through when a large media presence descends upon them.
I found the content analysis to be especially interesting: "Each of the three networks presented at least 200 minutes of news about the accident during the week..an average of 7 to 11 minutes a night devoted to a single story is an impressive figure" (189).
I also found the statistical analysis to be especially interesting. I'm not sure exactly how they came up with this data, but I looked closely at the table on page 205, which showed the relationship between reassuring statements and alarming statements about specific issues. The issues of citizen reaction,information, meltdown, and future of nuclear energy tended to be more alarming than reassuring. But the public was reassured about the accident status and the threat of danger. This shows that journalists were more jumpy about the future than the accident itself.
"Also, when citizens were quoted in the media, the quotes tended to be alarming, which goes against the overall trend...This may reflect the fact that citizens in the area were more alarmed than reassured; or it may indicate only that reporters chose to quote alarmed citizens more often" (202). We may never know the answer to this
question.
Finally, I think that if extensive reports were done concerning journalism in the context of major event in our history, we could learn a lot for the future.