Blog Post 1: Errors from The Fayette Citizen

During the summer between my junior and senior years in high school, I interned at The Fayette Citizen, the best local newspaper in my hometown. So I figured that for a blog post on editing, I'd go with my alma mater. I looked at two stories. One, "Coweta says 'no' to Starship," I decided to edit for this post. The other, "No arrests yet in PTC condo shooting," I thought you could look at and comment about.

"Coweta says 'no' to Starship"

The lede is too long; it runs on, which hurts clarity. I would end the sentence at "Gifts" and add the information about the store's location to the next sentence.

The first paragraph is too long and contains too much information. A lot of that could be moved to later grafs to help with clarity and readability.

In the second graf, if the quotation is transposed from a speech, there should not be a comma between "have seen" and "and what they have been told."

Still the second graf: The information that Rodney Brooks is the District 4 Commissioner was already in the first graf. No need to repeat it - or Brooks's first name - here.

A nit-picky quibble with the third graf: The end of the sentence is structured as a series, but it isn't, really, because the items in the series do not share the same constructions. It should read something like "...packed the commission and the foyer outside and spilled down the stairway into the first floor lobby."

The "it" in the fourth graf has an ambiguous referent. It is unclear whether "it" refers to the zoning district or to the business, which makes what the sentence is actually saying incredibly unclear.

Sixth graf: Like in the third, the first sentence is structured like a series when it really shouldn't be. It should read "...(county staff) investigated and spoke with the owners, and they believe that what they’ve been told and what they’ve seen..."

Comma errors in graf seven: Comma after "residents" and "Latham" in the first sentence, and no comma after "follow" in the last sentence.

Graf nine: "law suit" should be one word.

Blog 1: The White House Record Collection

This month, Rolling Stone had an interesting article on the White House’s record collection. The headline in the link to the story was “Obama’s Secret Record Collection” and featured a picture of President Barack Obama. As I read the article, I realized this was misleading. Just reading the title, I expected a story about old records Obama has collected over the years. In actuality, it is about the record collection that has been in the White House more than twenty years. The story is directly linked with an older piece about what music is on his iPod because this particular article mentions so little about his taste in music.

As for style, the story was somewhat cluttered. For example, the structure of this sentence was unorganized: "They felt they needed to redress some of the oversights that might have taken place the first time around," says Boston music critic and author Bob Blumenthal, who was put in charge of adding 200 rock records to the library. I think it would have been more effective if he introduced Blumenthal with the clause describing his significance to the story and then added the quote in a new sentence.

A grammatical error was in the sentence: “Depending on the source, the reason was Nancy Reagan's distaste for shelves of vinyl, or the edgy choices themselves.” I do not think he needed the comma after vinyl because there is only one subject. The AP Stylebook supports the omission of the comma because the two clauses could not stand alone as individual sentences.

My only suggestion concerning the article's content would be that he gave the article a little more character. He focuses more on how the collection was put together, but it would have been interesting if he had also included an anecdote about a president actually using the LPs. He also leaves out a description of the sound system. I would have appreciated a description of what the system was like more than where it used to be located.

Overall, the article was interesting and provided a good break from the countless, alarming articles about the economy.

Rolling Stone's exclusive Bush farewell "interview"

Unless you've been living under a rock or in self-imposed isolation for the past eight years, it shouldn't come as much of a newsflash that music magazine titan Rolling Stone has a strong liberal bias. More specifically, the publication makes it known that it hates former President George W. Bush and his administration.  Not that I feel any differently; how could I be in favor of an administration that not only breached the Constitution on countless different grounds, but manipulated and withheld enough information from the American public to keep its twisted facade going for two full terms?

All the same, I can't help but feel mildly turned off by Rolling Stone's feature article from their January 22, 2009 issue, which details a mock farewell interview with George W. Bush.  I'm in favor of injecting a little humor into the journalistic world, but it has to be incorporated with tact.  In this article, writer Matt Taibbi displays writing tactics that feel deceptive, sensationalistic and -- you guessed it -- tasteless.

Nowhere in the article's foreword does Rolling Stone make it clear that the interview is false.  Although, to the publication's credit, they do label it the "farewell interview we wish he'd give" on the cover, the feature itself includes no such evidence of its fictional nature: The piece's construction is identical to the other legitimate news pieces in the issue, and if a reader happened not to read the cover carefully -- or, even more likely, if the reader only accessed the online version -- there's a distinct possibility that he or she could assimilate the article as factual truth.  It's almost as if Rolling Stone is saying, "This is a fabricated conversation... but if you happen to believe it actually took place, that's just fine by us."

Obviously, Rolling Stone's readership demographic is predominantly liberal, so it assumes its perceived audience will find the article hilarious.  But this means, of course, that it consequently places too much faith in the audience's ability to take a joke.  I mean no offense to Rolling Stone's readership -- in fact, I'm very much a part of it -- but the fact of the matter is that some people are completely blind in their devotion to Obama and hatred for Bush.  Coupled with the lack of clarity regarding the piece's validity -- not to mention readers' presuppositions to typically encountering factual articles in the magazine -- this mindset becomes problematic and could lead one to truly believe that what they are reading.

The article presents another more clearly visible and less analytical problem to the reader: What is the point?  Okay, we all know the gist of what's been happening in the American political landscape -- Bush screwed up extensively as President, the public became aware of this, lost its confidence in the GOP and the conventional "white ruler" image, and opted for change, which has manifested itself in our first black president, Barack Obama.  Obama won, and Bush is finally out of the picture. So what more could Rolling Stone OR its readership possibly ask for if everything worked out to its favor?  That's why I had to ask myself what the point of a mock interview with Bush is -- if there is even a point at all.

The facetious nature of the article did supply a handful of laughs and, in select places, provided some sharp wit and satire.  But for the most part it reads like a smug reminder of Bush's failure, serving little purpose except to rub it in Bush's and his supporters' faces one more time.  In my opinion, the article uses sensational journalistic tactics to beat a dead horse and offers hardly anything of substance, leaving little more than a foul taste in the reader's mouth.  Or at least mine.  Sure, Bush is an idiot, but we've all known that for years now -- just let the man be.  There are much bigger fish for journalists to fry in the current state of affairs.

Anti-Love Drug article in the New York Times

In the article "Anti-Love Drug May Be Ticket to Bliss," John Tierney provides a provocative alternative to the emotion of love - medicine. Recent discoveries in the fields of genetics and neuroscience support that monogamy and "love" are linked to chemical hormones in the brain. While studying autism and schizophrenia, researchers discovered that the presence or absence of certain hormones either enabled or hindered love. With this understanding, scientists can create pills to induce or even allay the emotions tied to love, Tierney said.

Although the article is well written, a portion of Tierney's writing is haphazard and somewhat inappropriate for the "Science Times," regardless of the article's column-like status. The lede catches the reader's attention, but I was unsure of whether he was talking about hormones that induce or repel love; it turns out that he lists evidence for both, but much of his support is reserved later in the article.

It's difficult to say whether the majority of readers are patient enough to read the technicalities of a discovery after the "big picture" is explained in previous paragraphs. As a solution, Tierney could have included more research methods higher in the article. After all, the piece was featured in a national paper's science section under "Findings," which sounds like a news (not opinions) section. This was also the first article the New York Times published on the topic, which, in my opinion, confused readers because it looked like a news story and wasn't accompanied by an unbiased version of the research.

Stylistically, the mentioning of Odysseus, Britney Spears and Larry King as individuals who have "love" troubles should be moved to later in the article or not featured at all. I understand why Tierney lists these celebrities, but I think the witty sayings in the first and second paragraphs accommodate most audiences. When I realized Tierney was a columnist, it slightly reduced my concerns with his usage of "infatuated ass."

On the other hand, I understand why the author used the analogy of Odysseus being "tied to the mast of a ship" because it reflects his personal opinion of love. This is also obvious in the final paragraph and the headline itself where readers are misled into thinking that scientists are busily working on an "anti-love potion." I enjoyed the article and the topic at hand, but much of the commentary skewed the motivations behind the research. Here's the take-home message: the New York Times needs to clearly define its news and opinion sections so readers do not mistake similar articles as hard news.

This is the interpretation I initially expected from the "Science Times." It would have coupled nicely with Tierney's piece.

Not Making a B.I.G. Enough Deal

I remember Tupac and "Biggie" like most of my peers remember the New Kids on the Block--with nostalgia that overpowers the embarrassment of having a childhood in the '90s. That is what made me so excited to hear that some of the Athens theaters would be playing "Notorious," the highly anticipated biopic of rap mogul Christopher Wallace.

Like most college movie-goers, I knew that Thursday's "Out & About" section in The Red &Black would probably have a movie review of "Notorious," but little did I know how confused it would leave me.

Though there were no clear grammatical errors within the article,the author doesn't seem to focus in on what should be the main object of her movie critique--the performance of the main actor. Especially with biopics, if the lead actor or actress fails to deliver a convincing performance, the movie is almost always guaranteed to bust.

Secondly, editors, as Professor Parks stated in class, should never assume their reader knows as much about the topics as their writers do. The reviewer assumes that the reader is a Biggie expert by mentioning events and controversies without further explanations. For example, she states "As for the controversy surrounding Biggie and Shakur's murders, the film takes a decidedly hands-off approach..." We may all know who Tupac and Biggie were, but many of us unfamiliar with the East/West rap rivalry circa '90s have no idea about what sort of "controversy" the author is talking about.

In a much more successful attempt, Flagpole Magazine also reviews "Notorious" but does it with clarity and explanations. The article contains the perfect amount of plot summary without being overbearing or spoiling the movie. The first graph briefly outlines the importance of each character and then eases into criticism and praise for filming style and, of course, acting. Unlike The Red and Black's review, the author of Flagpole's review doesn't assume the reader knows anything at all about the life of Christopher Wallace, but the author also makes the article relevant to us by making it important to us.

Lastly, the conclusions to both articles were trying to allude to the overall point of the movie, but since The Red and Black fails to simply state the reason the readers should care, the purpose of the entire review is lost. The Red and Black's review states that "'Notorious' concludes with a real-life montage of funeral onlookers dancing to Biggie's music, proving that in spite of the uneven execution of the film, there exists a valid point in making it," but simply leaves the readers wondering what exactly that point was and maybe we had missed it earlier on in the article.

Flagpole's conclusion aims to be clear and concise by stating "any 20-to-30-something who lived through the East Coast/ West Coast rap wars... will find Notorious an engrossing recount of recent pop history. "Or in other words, we watch movies about the "good ol' days" so that we can remember the "good ol' days." Duh.

Spring Semester Fee - According to the Technique

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting my brother at Georgia Tech for his birthday. Saturday night I had my first encounter with Tech’s school newspaper, the Technique.

The Technique is printed weekly and calls itself “the South’s Liveliest College Newspaper.” As an editor and in my efforts to “improve everything” around me, I couldn’t help but examine in depth this strange publication. Recognizing that I already had an opinion of this publication (see: To Hell With Georgia), I shall refrain from making comments on things like the provocative Sliver Box and the full-page review of Britney Spear’s new album.

Instead, it is only fair that I compare something that the Jackets and Bulldogs have in common. Most recently that happens to be the $100 fee that has been placed on all research universities across the state of Georgia.

Technique’s article, “New student fee to cover budget shortfall” is overwhelming. To start, the first few graphs suffer from statistical overload. The article is weighed down with numbers and long quotes. Published on Jan. 16, the writer was given more than enough time to gather different angles and/or student opinions. This story was lacking and made me feel like I was rereading the same information. Also, the organization of the story completely dismantled any hierarchy of information in the story.


The Red and Black’s article, “Budget cuts require added fee for spring” relays the story in a more logical manner. It was published the morning following the decision and supplied enough information for students at the time. Of course, the Red and Black published many follow-ups in the following weeks from different angles, explaining the fee and its usage. However, in this article, everything I needed to know was presented and the main points were clear. I felt like I was guided through the story.

To improve the story in the Technique, I would try to organize and simplify the information in a way that made sense. The Technique article is a little over twice the size of the Red and Black article. However, both provide the same information.

I understand that there are some differences between The Technique and The Red and Black. Publishing something weekly versus daily calls for a different type of reporting and writing style. However, I felt lost in the article published in the Technique. As a student newspaper, it appeared detached from a student perspective.

Improvments to local news articles

I have been looking through newspapers recently in search of editing errors. I did not have to look farther than Athens' local papers. For the sake of relevance, I will discuss the most recent flaws that I've discovered. Today's issue of the Red and Black contained the article "Greek seminar tackles hazing." While I found no real grammatical or style errors in the article, there were number of issues regarding content and organization I would like to address. The lead does a decent job of summarizing the subject of the article. But the attribution, "...panel members discussed in a presentation," is vague. Was the presentation only on hazing? Members of what panel? Where was the presentation? The next graph contains a quote by the advisor to the National Pan-Hellenic Council and gives the name of the presentation, "I Stand Accused," but the members of the panel remain unclear. I am left to assume that the three people quoted were the only members of the panel. The other imperfect article I found was less confusing.
The article “Alert neighbor spies suspicious stranger” from the today’s Athens-Banner Herald contained a style error when it used to abbreviation GPS on first reference. According to the AP Stylebook, Global Positioning System should be used on first reference, and the abbreviation GPS on second reference. Also, the phrase, “thin gloves that thieves often use to avoid leaving fingerprints,” implies that the suspect is a guilty and does not accurately describe the gloves. Perhaps naming the material of the gloves would have provided a more in-depth description. In addition, the article states that the robbery suspect, Anthony Ellison, was charged with possession of tools for a crime, but there was no mention of those tools earlier in the article.