I was saying yesterday that conventional newswriting repels readers.
This morning, the Albuquerque Journal offers (page C2, Around the Metro Area) a four-paragraph story on a meeting about the future of Santa Fe's Armory that...well, that puzzles me.
The first graph - which says veterans will get together in Albuquerque today to consider a pending bill to transfer ownership of the property. It ends with "according to a news release."
The second graph tells us where and when.
The third, which explains where the Santa Fe Armory is (Old Pecos Trail) how big its acreage (7.5 acroes) and names three organizations housed in the building, ends "the release states."
The fourth tells us those entities lease space from the Department of Military Affairs, "according to the release." It explains the Legislautre is considering a bill to move the property to ther Department of Cultural Affairs.
The phrases around which I have put quotes are atrributions. My problem is that I don't understand why they are there.
News organizatiosn attribute information or statements routinely. First, to be clear and accurate. The second aim is to deflect criticism - "Hey, Joe Blow said that, not the Journal." And the third is to defend against legal action.
You find lots of attribution in stories where there is controversy - criminal trials, political disputes, neighborhood dustups and such. Or uncertainty, as in the first account of a crime, where you do well to say "Police said...."
But why here? Why spend so much space attributing this story?
Perhaps the reporter could not reach the source of the release; that might justify the first attribution. But the others relate to information that isn' controversial and that may be easily confirmed with a phone call or two.
These attributions do serve, however, to slow and muddy the story, making it longer and less interesting. Which is why I bring up the subject. Newspapers need to be more reader-friendly, not less.
Or am I missing something?