I've got no problem with the story itself, it's simple police-blotter stuff. Today's editing lesson involves what happens when you forget the meaning of a word you use frequently.
There's a lot of very lumpy gravy in the copy, but I'll focus on the worst. "Possible suspect" here is just wrong. What you, the Courier reporter or editor, mean to say is either just 'suspect' or 'possible perpetrator.' Treating 'suspect' as interchangeable with 'perpetrator' leads to all sorts of nonsense, not least in how you relate to people who have been accused of crime.
Further reading: Strunk and White, "The Elements of Style," chapter 13.
For readers of the Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona. Comment and discuss. Be nice, now.
Muggs archive
▼
Saturday, April 14, 2007
3 comments:
I encourage you to share your own views and experience with me and other readers. How you do that matters, and I'm committed to maintaining a place where readers and commenters can feel safe from adolescent BS. So here's the deal:
There are two kinds of anonymous comments: those by people who have a genuine fear of revenge from the dark side, and those from darksiders just hiding to avoid accountability. You may post comments anonymously, but I reserve the right to treat anonymous comments as found items that belong to me and do with them as I see fit.
If, on the other hand, you're willing to stand by your convictions and post under your own name or a regular handle, your comments belong to you, and I'll edit them only on egregious violations of respect for others.
If this doesn't work for you, I'm sure you'll be happier somewhere else.
to be fair to the reporter the media in general have been guilty of this kind of reporting you dissect in this article. that ,while not quite coming out and saying it directly,sort of infers thus and so is guilty because the police are either looking for ,or ,want to question them.But as usual steve you are correct sir !
ReplyDeleteMy nit-picking feel about English grammar makes me squirm when I read about an eye-witness IDing a perp he knows quite well, say his brother-in-law, who is then referred to as the "suspect." There must be a better term! (Yes, I realize that all this has to do with "until proven guilty",but it still grates on my mind's ear.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the blog, Granny J. I get what you're saying, but of course the reporter is almost never the witness, and so can't bear witness directly.
ReplyDeleteGood editors stick to the facts, and facts are usually ambiguous.