So there I was early this morning, reading the front page of the Albuquerque Journal into a computer.
(Thus, users of the Newsline for the Blind can dial up the news on a touchtone phone hear it.)
And I was stumbling all around.
Partly my fault; I am genetically a stumble bum. But the reporters and editors who insist on destroying fine stories by inserting "He said" or "according to Police Chief Jane Austen" deserve some of the blame, too.
They attribute without rhyme or reason, all over the page.
Mike Santullo, who runs Newsline for the State Commission for the Blind, understood perfectly when I started jumping up and down in frustration.
The journalism biz likes "attribution."
I know two good reasons why. One is to make clear who is saying what.
The other is to protect against lawsuits. It's better to hide behind the Police Chief than not.
But I frequently read stories with sentences like this:
"The sun rose this morning," according to Senator Domenici.
Puhleeze!
Sprinkling stories with "according to" and "she said" isn't just silly. It gets in the way of reading comprehension.
We ought to write stories fluently, the way people like to read them.
Mind you, I am not saying newspapers should write for the ear, the way radio and TV do. Readers use eyes.
But what's wrong with offering a narrative un - interrupted by useless attribution?
For example:
"Police Chief Austen described what happened at the corner of Central and University this way:"
(The following paragraph then requires no, zero, nada attribution.)
More on this tomorrow. As well as the promised followup to President Bush is Soft on Terrorism.
AA
Posted by Arthur Alpert at December 29, 2003 06:13 PM