“Today, the court failed to invalidate the
wrongful acquittal of a man who never refused to deny that he resigned from a bankrupt
company because they stopped prohibiting the exclusion of former rivals who reversed
their opposition to banning discrimination against those not misidentified as
transsexuals.”
Ok, I
lied. I did not actually read that in
the news. I made it up!
But it's
actually not that much of an exaggeration from real articles that I do see
every day. Here is a real live opening
sentence from an article today's Houston Chronicle:
"Twenty Texas Republicans broke ranks
with President Trump … in a failing effort to block the administration from lifting
sanctions against Russian companies controlled by an ally of Putin."
It seems
that many news writers try to summarize way too much data and too many events all
in one very long-winded sentence. And
it's doubly hard to digest it when every phrase and clause contains negatives!
 |
| Putin |
So in order
to figure out if this is good news or bad news for the above-mentioned Putin
allies, I had to pull out a sheet of poster board to diagram and trace the
whole darn sentence. In the end, I think
I figured out that the Putin allies won this round. Or wait - maybe not - lemme review it again …
Anyway, here
is my plea to anybody who writes news or commentary: Regardless of whether you are pro-Putin are
anti-Putin (or pro-transsexual are anti-transsexual, for that matter), please write
clearly. If the event has a long and
complex history behind it, make it easy on the reader by at least stating, within
the first few words, who is the winner and who is the loser. THEN get into the gory details.
No comments:
Post a Comment