Sunday, October 14, 2007

Anatomy of a news report

The BBC ran a story headlined "Indian temple stampede kills 12" today, 14 Oct 2007; the URL is "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7043762.stm". I believe it is instructive to examine it.

> Twelve people have been killed after a stampede
> at a hilltop Hindu temple in India, police said.

1. "Police said"? Which police, or who? The Gujarat Police's official spokesman, or the local officer in charge of the district, or a constable in Delhi who is the correspondent's acquaintance, and owns a pocket radio on which he heard about the tragedy.

> A further eight people were injured at the
> religious festival at a popular temple of
> Hindu goddess Mahakali, in the Western
> state of Gujarat.

2. Inappropriate choice of article: "a religious festival", and not "the religious festival".

3. Unnecessary capitalization: "western", instead of "Western".

4. Was this also said by the police? Or is this something the writer personally knows to be true?

> Thousands of people reportedly crowded a
> narrow path leading to the temple when
> the stampede occurred.

5. Interesting - who reported this? Still the same "police", or someone else now?

> Some worshippers are thought to have been
> pushed off the bridge while others were trampled.

6. Who is doing the thinking here?

7. Some are thought to be pushed off the bridge, but what of those who were trampled? Are they also "thought" to have been trampled, or is the writer now conveying a statement personally known to be true? One wonders how the writer comes by this personal knowledge - or is it indeed yet another source? If the latter, then this increases the potential number of distinct sources to five.

> The BBC South Asia's correspondent says
> there are accounts that thousands of
> people climbing up to the temple and
> thousands more descending after completing
> their visit were all trying to use one
> narrow bridge across a gorge.

8. Finally, a named source! Well, almost named. And this worthy correspondent speaks of "accounts"! Accounts by those present at the scene? Or did they see a news report on a local TV channel? Or read it on another news website?

9. Is the figure mentioned here reliable? Who is responsible for its truth value? The BBC? Well, they don't claim it is true - merely that it's what their South Asia correspondent says. Is he or she responsible? No, that's what he or she has been told by an unnamed person or persons, or read in an unnamed publication, or heard over an unnamed news channel.

10. The language leads one to believe that there is a single BBC correspondent for all of south Asia; using geography, one wonders if they have one person covering around 1.5 billion people. This is surely an interesting job. One more for China, a third for the rest of Asia, 85 more for Jerusalem, four each in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps that makes a total of hundred for Asia!

> There was a crush and then a
> stampede, he says.

11. Ah, it is a he! Now we know a little more - the unnamed correspondent is a man. Does he continue to relay an "account" he picked up somewhere, or is this statement his personal truth?

> The temple is situated in Panchmahal district,
> nearly 150km (90 miles) south of Ahmadabad,
> the main city of western Gujarat state.

12. This is probably the "most" true statement in the entire article. Perhaps they would have done well to be consistent, and add "according to the high-school atlas he bought two years ago".

13. Prefer a space between "150" and "km", i.e. "150 km" and not "150km".

14. "main city of western Gujarat state" - the last word is puzzling. Is Ahmadabad the main city of western Gujarat, or is Ahamadabad the main city of the western state of Gujarat?

15. The BBC choice of accompanying visual is as inane as ever: a map of the region! One wonders what the green bit above Delhi is meant to represent. Either an addition to the state of Gujarat, hundreds of miles away, has taken place, known only to the BBC, or the school-atlas the correspondent bought wasn't a very good buy.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

The BBC and the thin edge of the wedge

I had written a letter to the BBC and the Press Council about this a few months back; curious that I overlooked publishing it here. The Press Council responded that they did not think any ethical border had been crossed, and the BBC inexplicably said that they definitely mind their grammar, and thanked me for the letter. Sigh.


Dear Ma'am/Sir,

I write today to bring to your attention a most vile practice the media in general, and the BBC in this instance, thinks it acceptable to stoop to.

Here are the two articles I refer to below:

a) "Scheme to aid duped Indian brides" published on the Web on 23 February 2007
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6389365.stm)

b) "India re-assesses menstrual forms" published on the Web on 12 April 2007.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6547909.stm)

The first one seemed to me to be a sample of shoddy journalism, and I wrote to the BBC via their web-form (it drew no response), mentioning in particular that:

> 1. It had two pictures, the first of which showed the backs of vaguely Indian looking unidentified women at an unstated venue, not engaged in any particular activity, apart from the act of standing. How this picture was germane to the article is beyond me.

Some weeks later, I see that they used the same picture in a subsequent article, which had nothing to do with brides, duped or otherwise, titled "India re-assesses menstrual forms" with the caption "Female civil servants say they are being discriminated against".

The last time these three Indian-looking women showed us their backs, the caption read "The women will be entitled to financial assistance".

This picture is cropped a little in the second article, and so one of the ladies (all of whom have gone from being a duped bride to a discriminated female civil servant) is missing.

From this, I see that the BBC does not care whether or not a picture in an article has anything to do with the article itself. This is disturbing, and it is long past the thin edge of the wedge. What's next? A picture of a ugly brute thrashing a child, captioned "Muslim families protest against domestic violence" - the journalist probably will get away with it, even if the man is not Muslim, or the pair are professional actors from a Hollywood movie, assuming what was intended was a vilification of the Muslim male or middle-eastern/Asian family values, all at the expense of a little thing called integrity. Even if Muslim males are actually harsh to their wives and children, I would still insist that a "fake" picture not be used.
Not every "news story" needs a picture. If the BBC does not have one relevant to the story, they may not take a random one from their probably immense database.

Laxity of integrity is dangerous, and must not be resorted to, even in cases which appear to be harmless. For instance, when one writes about "World leaders discuss African poverty", one can put in a random image of a small, scantily clad, black skinned African child with haunting eyes titling it "Many children in Africa live dangerously below the poverty line"; this picture could have been taken fifteen years ago, for there are no distinguishing marks in the background. However, journalism is not art. Art can (and often strives to) be representational. Journalism is about specific incidents, with specific people, and entertainment and base gratification ought not to be part of its brief.

Quite apart from this, is another issue this abuse of visual impact raises. Does the BBC seek out certain stereotypes and attempt to propagate them, out of boredom or interest? In this case, we see vaguely brown skinned women, wearing a certain sort of dress. Indian citizens have various racial types and modes of dress, both reflecting often enough upon their religion and language. I see no reason why these women should be shown with their backs to the camera. Why backs, and not more distinguishable or prettier parts of their anatomy? If one accompanies adverse articles on Venezuela with images of drug lords and their gunned-down victims, or writes flattering articles showing grand horses and fine boulevards, one achieves rather different results. Pair an article on China with a peasant wearing a hat, and it reinforces China's poverty and backwardness. A picture can be a less exact vehicle of truth than ten hundred words. There should be no word limit for stating the truth.

If their column-inches prerogative denies a comprehensive view, then that's where I expect a native sense of fair play to drive the paring-down process. If a murder is committed, one can devise the headline as "Murder at Kensington last night", or "Murderer was black", or "Murder: attacker was drunk Chelsea supporter", or "Blonde mother of two killed", or "Cheating woman slain", or "Born again Christian charged with homicide", all of which might be perfectly true, but all of which are prevarications, not very subtly aiming to lead the reader to a partisan view. How about "Human being kills human being", for every human life ought to be treated as equally valuable in the main, irrespective of alcohol level in blood (of the victim or the accused), race, religion, clothes, immigrant status, apparent motive et cetera. It is quite possible that it was a hate crime, or one of passion, or just a horrible case of mistaken identity, but this is subordinate to the basic fact (that one killed another). All extenuating and exacerbating factors might indeed have a part to play in the overall scheme of things but they may scarcely be neatly assigned into a cause-and-effect flow diagram, which is what a sensational headline usually seeks to do.

I could ramble on (if such a mild word be permitted to the anguish, indignation and anger I experience), for though I have long given up television and newspaper subscription, I occasionally do look at journalism today, and care enough to write about it. If you believe I have naively misunderstood the matter, please feel free to so inform me. Perhaps I should think of becoming a Style Consultant, the consideration of style not encroaching upon a sincere desire for the whole truth, or as much of it be known.

My original letter (sent via the BBC's web-form, as I mention earlier) to the first article drew no answer from the BBC, hence I write to you. As a matter of form, I intend to also send the BBC a written complaint, but I'm not certain I shall get any response this time either.

Wishing us all years of of ethical journalism, founded on fairness and a respect for truth, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
S
Lost tribes and lost values

Spotted on the BBC website: the following story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm , titled 'Unknown' Peru Amazon tribe seen, published on 04 Oct 07 had an image of the sun setting over a river.

Was this picture taken in Peru? Was it close to where the tribe was spotted?

The picture was titled "Logging is forcing tribes deeper into the jungle"; even with the most generous of interpretations, I cannot say that the picture has anything to do with the caption, or the story.

Does the BBC feel compelled to put a picture in every single story irrespective of whether or not it has any relevance? (this is not the first time that an entirely irrelevant picture has been thus abused)

We should worry about infecting the tribals with diseases, and also about the lack of journalistic ethics in our own society.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Journalism zeroes in on Truth

And after a glorious siege, offers her a job as a cocktail waitress

Well, the original article was "Pakistan zeroes in on zealots" in the Christian Science Monitor published this day 09 July 2007 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0709/p08s01-comv.html?page=1); snipped and commented upon, below.

> The standoff at the Red Mosque represents the rise of moderate
> Muslims against violent, vigilante Islam.

Possibly; however, it is noteworthy that both sides in this conflict carry automatic weapons and are prepared, and trained, to kill. Whether one is "right", or "wrong", or "justified" depends upon one's point of view.

> When the violent strand of Islam eventually collapses of
> its inherent contradiction, that day may have been foreseen
> in the siege at Pakistan's Red Mosque.

What inherent contradiction? That it is a religion of peace and still is involved in murders the world over? Well, it's not the first, and such a trifling thing as a logical discrepancy is not adequate to stop someone who "believes" rather than "thinks". This is true not just of terrorists, but of the major part of mankind.

> If the military uses wise tactics to end the siege well,
> civilization will be the victor.

This is, firstly, pompous. The word "civilization" does not, yet, refer exclusively to Japanese society, or the ancient Greek city state, or Canadian democracy. After any conflict, the victor will (eventually) be deemed to be, or even have been, civilized.

Secondly, what if the military uses "unwise tactics" to end the siege "well"? Or "wise tactics" to end the siege "unwell"? Who shall decree what is wise, and what is well, and for whom?

> Pakistani society, which prefers democracy over sharia
> vigilantism, was fed up.

Indeed? One wonders how the writer pretends to know this? Interesting that a people should "prefer" democracy, but have years of military dictatorship.

> And one of their leaders, senior cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz,
> tried to sneak out of the compound in women's clothing,
> covered in a burqa and wearing high heels.
> For all of his past sermonizing on keeping the sexes
> separate, his attempted escape in drag revealed the
> underlying farce of Islamic holy war.

This is quite an amusing picture. However, I don't quite think that a single person's attempt to survive an armed conflict wearing clothes ordinarily worn by members of the opposite gender, or indeed clothes no longer in fashion, or not suited to the weather, or indeed no clothes at all, may be used to pass judgement upon an entire social phenomenon. This is not very different from using a hypothetical schoolchild's murder of his classmates to blame the whole of western Christianity, or to condemn its values of freedom, tolerance and personal privacy.

> If Mr. Musharraf succeeds in ending the standoff
> with little bloodshed, the victory will send a strong
> message to anyone trying to turn Pakistan into "Talistan."

It's actually General Musharraf, not Mr. Musharraf, as that country's head of state keeps too his military rank.
What message will it send? That military force can solve any crisis? This is not a bank robbery in progress; brute force is usually not at its most effective in suppressing ideas.

> The nation's problem is compounded by the bungled attempts
> of Musharraf, who is both president and chief of the army,
> to restore a full democracy in Pakistan after his eight
> years in power.

Ah, now it's just "Musharraf"!

What, I wonder, is a "full democracy"? Where every single member participates in the state's decisions? Such a system of government - and it is only one of many systems of government - does not exist in any society, nor has it ever existed.

Systems of government are the means, leading to an end: a life of dignity, justice and freedom, perhaps.

How curious that the means, democracy, is now hailed as the end.

> He has the quiet support of much of Pakistan's political
> opposition.

Quiet support? So they really want him to stay, but are going to keep it secret? Not usually the nature of a politician, is it?

> This crisis also represents, in a microcosm, an attempt
> by the world's 1 billion, mainly moderate Muslims to stand
> up to zealots. Al Qaeda and other such groups have lost
> their "war" to create a united Muslim state because of
> their violent, antidemocratic tactics. It only takes a
> civilized response to reveal their lack of appeal.

This appears premature. I believe the clash continues; as evinced by the situation in Iraq, Pakistan, the south of Thailand, England, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.. In fact, the evidence is so strongly in support of the "war" not having ended, that one wonders what the brief of the writer is; it does not appear to be objective.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Contemptible prevarication

The Pakistani newspaper Dawn (http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/08/top2.htm) states:

> For the first time during the five-day battle, the government
> tried to impose a censorship on the media by not allowing
> its personnel to proceed close to Lal Masjid.

This is not censorship. If a media story about the five-day battle was not allowed to be published, that would be censorship. I imagine that, in most free countries, the media is also not allowed into a citizen's home - that's not censorship either. It's called privacy. Ditto for access to certain government offices, crime scenes, military conflict, operation theatres - for various reasons, many entirely unrelated to censorship.

As an aside: certainly an amusing phrase, that (its personnel). And, also a telling one; the media has begun to regard itself as a unified organization, with uniformed drones entitled to be beyond laws and norms of civilized behaviour.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Cameras and human life

An article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn (URL: http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/13/top1.htm) has the following:

> Many camerapersons were injured and their expensive
> cameras smashed while they were beaten up.

Expensive cameras? One wonders whether they were sleek as well? Perhaps at the cutting edge of photographic technology?

Why is the cost of these inanimate, mass-produced objects of relevance, when their bearers were attacked and hurt?

Especially puzzling, for this is an article that starts with "At least 34 people were killed and over 140 others injured...."

Human tragedy, and we are told of expensive cameras. I can understand that some journalists value their own kind above the populace. That they should so prefer their equipment is a little shocking.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

On ugliness and faintly pathetic pseudo-rhetoric


Comments on a recent article by a Mr. Jawed Naqvi in a Pakistani newspaper (URL: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/jawed/20070705.htm) titled "The ugly American is passé; welcome the ugly Indian".

> IT is legitimate to doubt the credibility of the Pew opinion poll that once showed
> Indians as supportive of the US, when the rest of the world, including its
> European allies, seemed to have deserted America over the Iraq fiasco.

This is not even specious reasoning. The opinion of the rest of the world is distinct from that of the Indians, and hence is no reason to doubt the credibility of any poll. (It is entirely legitimate to do so, of course, given the nature of opinion polls.) Also, one finds it hard to believe that the rest of the world is indeed unanimous in its criticism of the "Iraq fiasco".

> It can be conceded that in a country of a billion people, it’s not impossible to
> find a million something holding the view, which Pew mistook for endorsement
> from an entire nation.

This is downright silly, and I so did wish to avoid that word. Opinion polls do extrapolate. If one wishes to poll the Indians, done fairly regularly in that country (they call them elections), one does not solicit every single one of the billion people there.

> A majority of Indians would instinctively agree with Michael Moore rather than
> with Donald Rumsfeld about the causes that led to 9/11.

It is, of course, fairly interesting, and not a little pathetic, how Mr. Naqvi claims be able to characterise the views of a majority of Indians. Also, one wonders why the Indians would "instinctively" agree with Mr. Moore - because he wears jeans? He's younger?

> Similarly, more Indians would identify with the views of, say, Noam Chomsky rather
> than George W. Bush and his spin doctors about ways to bring peace to this planet.

Like the previous one, this too is an unsubstantiated claim. It reveals the author's preference for Chomsky over Bush, and also his inability to construct a cogent chain of reasoning, but little else.

> Pew representatives, if they mean serious business, should try out this experiment.
> Give Chomsky or Moore one tenth the space that Bush and Rumsfeld have been
> getting on Indian TV channels and then take an opinion poll about which side we’re
> really on.

Here's another interesting experiment. Show pictures of physically attractive men and women, and then we'll really know what the Indians wish to see.

A person P, at time T, has a certain opinion O on a given matter. If you give him books by Chomsky, Hitler, Gandhi, Mandela, Marx and Camus (or TV programmes on), he might well change his opinion. However, the study is about what his opinion is, not what it might be if he's influenced in a certain direction.

> Indian expatriates, more popularly known as NRIs, are known to hold diverse
> opinions not too different from the way the cookie crumbles back home.

What does this dubiously constructed sentence wish to express? - that NRIs hold a) diverse opinions and b) these opinions are not different from the situation at home? But then they cannot hold diverse opinions, can they?

> And sharply differing opinions have always existed in India

And in Colombia, Madagascar, China and Germany. Members of human societies tend to hold varying opinions.

> (so let’s not confuse this with virtues of recent democracy).

This is the most innocuous looking sentence of all! Recent democracy? India has been a democracy from the moment of its birth, which was not too long ago, of course. But I don't see the point here - is democracy being reviled? Or is a tendency of Indians to hold different opinions being stressed?

The rest of the article goes on in a rather disconnected tone about how the Indians are ugly, except for the extremely poor - which opinion Mr. Naqvi is, of course, entitled to.

My opinion is that Indians should also be entitled to believe in the vision of Bush et al, should they choose to, without being called ugly. Free society, common civility, the rules of debate and all that sort of thing.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

What I did before breakfast on Sunday morning

Took me a while to compose this review of some randomly chosen RSS articles from the Doordarshan website. I would like the country's foremost media house to be an example to others, even internationally. However, this is far from being true, as I shall point out in the context of some recent article of yours, enclosed here. Note that these are all from RSS feeds of one single day! (Sunday, 06 May 2007). The URLs do not appear, from their nomenclature, to be permanent at all (I expect from a web based media agency to have permanent URLs to their articles - with or without subscription).


1. Campaigning for last phase of UP polls to end today
(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Homepage/Homepage+-+Headlines/end+on+Sunday.htm)

> "The Lacklustre electioneering,......."

Incorrect punctuation: Why is the first letter of "lacklustre" in uppercase?

> ".....political leaders and cinestars canvassing for the respective party candidates."

Perhaps "for their respective", and not "for the respective"?

> Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) supremo Mayawati is taking on the rivals with single handidly......"

"single handidly"? This couldn't even have passed the electronic spellchecker. I presume the writer means "single handedly". With the i in the second word, and not an e.

> "....Mayawati is taking on the rivals with single handidly...."

Unnecessary use of the word "with" here.

> ".....by addressing series of meetings daily."

Missing article: "by addressing a series of meeting" is preferred.

> "......and cricketer Navjot Singh Siddhu sought vote for their respective candidates."

Missing article: "sought a vote", and not "sought vote". Unless they were seeking more than one vote - in which case, it should be "sought votes", and not "sought vote". At least, here it's "their respective", and not "the respective" as a couple of paragraphs before.

Apart from this, the twice used word "cinestar" does not exist in the O.E.D., and "supremo" (for Mayawati) is only an informal term. I wonder why she should be designated as a "supremo", but Sonia Gandhi gets to be called "president" (of their respective political parties)?

2. Rahul is fine: Shastri
(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Sports/Sports+-+Top+Story/Dravid+hit+by+a+bouncer.htm)

> "...team's manager Ravi Shastri.."

Missing article: "the team's manager" and not "team's manager". Also, commas are missing before and after "Ravi Shastri".

> "....he is on rest following doctor's advise."

"Advise" (with an s) is a verb, the correct noun form is "advice" (with a c); hence "doctor's advice", and not "doctor's advise".

> "....from Rudra Pratap Singh Saturday, the penultimate day of the...."

One presumes that the gentleman's name does not include a day of the week: hence, a comma is missing after "Rudra Pratap Singh", and a preposition ("on") before "Saturday".

> "Team's Administrative Manager Surendra Bhave said...."

Missing article: "The team's" and not "Team's". Also, two commas are missing; hence "..Manager, Surendra Bhave, said.." and not "..Manager Surendra Bhave said..."

3. 2-member committee to discuss contracts issue
(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Sports/Sports+-+Headlines/IGNOU+to+host+Brainstorming+session.htm)

> "The committee will reportedly discuss the issue with the players after the Bangladesh tour."

Error in semantics: "Reportedly, the committee will discuss...." or "The committee will, reportedly, discuss....", but not "The committee will reportedly discuss...".

> "The two-member committee will also decide the future coach for Indian cricket team. For this they will meet in the third week of May."

Missing article: "the Indian..." and not "Indian". Also, the latter sentence, in a four sentence article, does not add to the professional appearance of the article. I would prefer the two to be combined into "The two-member committee, in the third week of May, will also decide the future coach.....".


4. Praful Patel to welcome first Delhi-Surat Indian flight
(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Business/Business+-+Other+Stories/Cabinet+approves+setting+up+of+aviation+regulator.htm)

> "The first flight of Indian from New Delhi will land at Surat..."

But this is not the first flight of Indian from New Delhi! Perhaps the first flight of Indian from New Delhi to Surat.

> "This flight will operate on daily basis..."

Missing article: "on a daily basis" and not "on daily basis".

> "...sprucing up the airport facilities in order to...."

Superfluous article: "sprucing up airport facilities" is preferred.

5. Absconding TRS MLA likely to surrender today
(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/National/National+-+Headlines/Karnataka.htm)

> "...against him on May three and..."

May three? This is no way to designate the the third day of May. Funnily enough, the article goes on to use another, more appropriate, representation "...police on 3rd May in..".

> "...to obtain fake passport....."

Missing article: "obtain a fake passport" and not "obtain fake passport".

6.Delhi chess festival to begin today
(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Sports/Sports+-+Other+Stories/Delhi+chess+festival+to+begin+on+Sunday.htm)

> "A month-long Delhi State Chess Championships is....."

Choose from "The month-long Delhi State Chess Championship...", or "A month-long chess championship in Delhi....". In any case, the "s" at the end of "championships" is to be dropped.

7. India go down 1-0 to Aus in Azlan Shah hockey

(URL: http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Sports/Sports+-+Headlines/India+to+take+on+Aus+in+Azlan+Shah.htm)

> "Indian hockey team has opened campaign with..."

Missing article: "The Indian" and not "Indian". Also, prefer "opened its campaign" to "opened campaign".

> "..satisfied with his boy's performance."

Misplaced apostrophe. "his boys' performance" and not "his boy's performance".

> "......denying them any clear shot in the goal."

Prefer "clear shot at the goal" to "clear shot in the goal".

> "William Xalxo and Harpal Singh was effective...."

"Were", not "was". I.e. "William Xalxo and Harpal Singh were effective....".

> "Prabodh Tirkey and Vikram Kanth, who arrived just a day earlier to replace Ignace Tirkey, was up to...."

Prefer "..who had arrived..." to "...who arrived". Again, "Were", not "was".

> "It was the Australians...."

Yet again, "Were", not "was".

> "....reducing India's attack to far and few."

Prefer ending the sentence with "....reducing India's attack." (singular). Or ".....India's attacks...". (plural)

> "Indians made last ditch...."

Missing article: "The Indians made" and not "Indians made".

> "...it was good a showing.."

Switched words: "a good showing" and not "good a showing".

> "...we are moving in right direction.."

Missing article: "the right direction" and not "right direction".

Thursday, March 29, 2007

And Doordarshan yet again

Writing to them about errors in their articles doesn't seem to stop them from producing shoddy pieces on a consistent basis; my letter to them:

Your recent article "BJP launches UP campaign"
(http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Homepage/Homepage+-+Headlines/BJP.htm)
contains some fairly evident grammatical errors.

> Talking to reporters in Lucknow after addressing a workers' meet,
> Arun Jeitley former Union minister and BJP general secretary
> said Kalyan Singh would be party's Chief Ministerial candidate
> for upcoming Uttar Pradesh assembly polls.

There's a comma missing after 'Jeitley' and before 'said'.

There's an article missing before "party's Chief Ministerial candidate",
and another before "upcoming Uttar Pradesh assembly polls.".

> It is probably the first election when the entire BJP top
> brass is pitched in for simultaneous poll campaign launch
> covering almost the whole state.

There's an article missing before "simultaneous poll campaign launch".

> In Varanasi Former national BJP president M Venkaiah Naidu
> said the party manifesto for the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections
> will be released after the festival of Ram Navami.

Why is the first alphabet of "former" in uppercase?

There is a missing comma after "Varanasi".
DD strikes again

I write once again to point out the poor presentation of a news article on the Doordarshan website. The URL is http://www.ddinews.gov.in/International/International+-+Other+Stories/Navy+chiefs+seek+bullet+proof+cars.htm.

1. "Concerned about their security amid rising suicide attacks, the Chiefs of Pakistan's Air Force and Navy have asked the government to provide bullet vehicles to them. "

Here, one presumes the author means "bullet proof vehicles" and not "bullet vehicles".

2. "Presently, the air chief has a Mercedes car at his disposal but it is not bullet proof."

Incorrect punctuation, "the air chief" should be "the Air Chief".

3. "....on Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS) Lt-Gen Ahsan Salim Hayat, who was then Corps Commander Karanchi."

I'm not sure what Karanchi is, but it doesn't sound like the name of a Corps, like XII Corps etc.. Is it the location of the Corps HQ? The officer in question did command V Corps, which is based in Karachi. I can only presume that this is a typograhical error, and also one of nomenclature.
Appalling pieces of editing - Doordarshan

I'm shocked at the appalling lack of professionalism I'm dismayed to witness in what might be regarded as India's flagship media outlet. The letter I wrote to them follows:

Your recent article http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Homepage/Homepage+-+Headlines/bermuda.htm "Millions of Indians praying for our victory: Bermuda captain" published on Sunday 25 March 2007 contained a large number of faults - grammatical errors and misspelt words.

> In a highly improbable scenario in case Bermuda wins againsd Bangladesh then India has a chance
> to make it to the super eights and this very thought that hopes of a mighty country of one billion
> people rest on one of the smallest nation in the world makes Romaine happy.

Complete lack of punctuation here. Choose perhaps "In the highly improbable scenario that Bermuda wins...." or "In a highly improbable scenario - the case that Bermuda wins......"

Against, not againsd.

> ''Millions of Indian supporters will be backing us, it's good to have this Additional support,'' he told
> newspersons at Queen's park Oval after team's work out.

Why is the first letter of 'additional' capitalized?

The article before "team's work out" is missing.

> We've suffered two big losses, but we're looking to finish with a win tomorrow,'' he said with a chuckle.

The reported speech here should end with a period, not a comma.

> Romaine was thrilled that ''Bermuda fans appreciate what we've achieved by qualifying for
> the World Cup, and was confident that things will improve for Bermuda cricket after this exposure.

Incorrect switch from reported to direct speech. This is unforgiveable, at least on a professional's part. Or do you employ bored schoolchildren?

> ''The lack of good pitches back home has meant that we've played all our games away durinf the
> past year. As amatdurs, we're `lways relaxed in our approach.

During, not durinf.
Amateurs, not amatdurs.
Always, not 'lways.

> 'It's an important game for us as we low have a chance of advancing to the Super 8s.

Now, not low.

Also, the terminating double-quote is misplaced.

> So expect our nerves will be okay going for this tie.

Missing terminating double-quote.

> MaKilg the Super 8s will be a very significant moment for Bangladesh cricket,

Making, not MaKlig.

> Cricket's a big game back home. people back home are waiting for us to enter the Super 8s.It
> will make them happy,''Bashar said.

When starting a new sentence, the first letter of the first word ought to be in upper case. Hence "People", not "people".

A space is required between the period and the start of a new sentence. Hence "Super 8s. It will", not "Super 8s.It will".

A space is also required between a terminating double quote and the next word.
Hence *happy," Bashar said* and not *happy,"Bashar said*.

The reported speech here should end with a period, not a comma.


All this is bad enough - I've noticed shoddy editing of this sort on a fairly consistent basis. I wish I could offer some words of encouragement alongwith what I hope is castigation sufficient to cause you to take your editorial team to task. Perhaps even ask them to consider another line of work - as professional snake charmers, or assistant window cleaners; they seem to be entirely at sea with their current calling.
Could not be reached for comment


Consider the statement in a news-article:

"A Dell spokesperson could not be reached for comment."

snipped from the article "Dell launches low-cost PC in China " (at http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/03/21/HNdelllowcostpcchina_1.html).

This is plainly incorrect, for in any reasonable universe, it will always have been possible to reach a Dell spokesperson.

Consider an expedition to locate an incarnadine unicorn. It's possible one may not find one such a beast, and one may said that "a unicorn was not found". One may not say "a unicorn could not be found", for it's quite possible that a herd (or appropriate collective noun) of unicorns was grazing across the street, the vista blocked by a giant hoarding. Hence a unicorn could indeed be found, even though it was not.

For "could not be" implies that a unicorn cannot exist (or rather, could not have existed). My thesis is that a unicorn can exist, and Dell spokespersons can be reached.

This is not pedantry, but an insistence upon truth (or upon the desire for truth).

The statement "A Dell spokesperson could not be reached for comment." reeks of perfidy. My brother mislaid the phonebook, and so I couldn't find Dell's number. I called Dell, but they put me on hold for three whole minutes and I lost patience. I was busy finding my grill for summer. Dell was too busy. Dell didn't give me a free T-shirt and a return ticket to Hawaii. Dell is not obliged to answer everyone who calls or writes to them. I failed to get a response from Dell, and went ahead with my piece anyway, as I don't get paid if I don't publish. The hotel where I was staying had a problem with their switchboard, and kept routing me to a pizza delivery firm in Lisbon, instead of to the Dell customer relations number.

One can accept this sort of thing only if a reasonable attempt was made, over a reasonable period of time. However, this is very subjective, and unless this information is also provided alongwith the article, I suggest the path of greatest truth be taken, and "could not" in such cases be replaced by a "was not". If Dell was contacted, and they refused, then one may state that. As long as the journalist realizes that this refusal is no great assault against freedom of speech, or any civil liberty; on the contrary, it is the exercise of freedom. The freedom to refuse contact with the distasteful, or impertinent - or merely because one chooses so.

Friday, February 23, 2007

A basic lack of style

The BBC article "Scheme to aid duped Indian brides" published on the Web on Friday, 23 February 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6389365.stm)seemed to me a sample of shoddy journalism. My reasons follow.

1. It had two pictures, the first of which showed the backs of vaguely Indian looking unidentified women at an unstated venue, not engaged in any particular activity, apart from the act of standing. How this picture was germane to the article is beyond me.


2. "Once dumped, there is little these women can do."

This is disgusting language. Human beings are not objects to be dumped. They may be abandoned, abused, deceived, betrayed, misled and maligned - but not dumped. Of course, I understand that various American TV shows and movies will disagree with me; I expect better from the BBC.

3. "In India a financially well-established son-in-law living in the UK, US or Canada is highly coveted."

What is also desirable is a well-established comma after "India". Furthermore, what the writer presumably means is that prospective sons-in-law are coveted - for it is strange to covet one's own son-in-law!

4. "A Green Card holder in the US [which gives a foreigner right of residency and right to work]...."

The comment in the brackets is misplaced. The US does give a foreigner (millions, actually) the right to work - like almost every country in the world, but that is probably not what the writer meant. The brackets should have followed the phrase "Green Card".

5. "Because of social stigma, they are unable to remarry."

This is a ludicrous generalization, and quite untrue. Divorced women and men do marry again - in their thousands. A woman (or man) who has been left by her or his mate might indeed face some amount of embarrassment and veiled (or not) contempt, but it does not take away their ability to remarry.

6. The caption to the first picture is "The women will be entitled to financial assistance"

Which women, one wonders. Also, I see no connection between the caption and the picture.

7. The second picture is captioned "Dowries have been the subject of much debate in India"

This is banal to the point of silliness. "Dowries" can be replaced with almost anything without detracting from the truth, and triteness, of this assertion. E.g. cricket, the weather, politics, sex, money, religion, language, movies, tigers etc..