Draconian demands for front-page editorial excellence

[Joe Carillo]

Normally, front-page headline stories in the national newspapers get the most lavish editorial attention, with nitpicky copy editors and section editors and possibly the editor in chief himself or herself making doubly sure that the facts are right, the numbers are right, the context is right, the headlines and typefaces are right, and the grammar and usage in the stories are perfect in every way—from spelling and capitalizations down to the last hyphen, comma, period, and close quotes. In the days when I was a newspaperman myself, in fact, it was considered a journalistic disgrace for even a single error—no matter how minute—to get to the printed page. A wrong word or two in the inside pages was forgivable, but for the front-page headline story? You could lose your job or damage your reputation irreparably if it happened!

So how are the four major Metro Manila broadsheets these days faring against such draconian demands for editorial excellence in their front pages? Let’s take a look at the lead paragraph of the front-page headline story of each of them for their issue on the same day last week:

Newspaper A:
“The configuration of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape, with another possible team emerging and two popular evangelists flexing muscle.”

Newspaper B:
“Even if it’s a red letter day, people from all walks of life will paint the town yellow on Friday as they pay tribute to the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was assassinated 26 years ago while fighting for Philippine democracy.”

Newspaper C:
“MANILA, Philippines - With the rising popularity of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are being torn between him and Sen. Manuel Roxas II in their quest for the party’s standard-bearer in the 2010 elections.”

Newspaper D:
“Malacañang apparently needed former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needed it—at least when the subject was the 2010 elections.”

From the looks of it, the English grammar and usage of these lead sentences are far from perfect—and the errors in some of them are serious enough to cause some of the editors to lose a few nights’ sleep at least.

MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS:
   
Let’s now analyze each of the four lead sentences above and see how they can be improved.

Newspaper A:
“The configuration of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape, with another possible team emerging and two popular evangelists flexing muscle.”

My digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines the word “configuration” as, first, the relative arrangement of parts or elements and, second, as “shape.” In other words, “configuration” is synonymous with “shape.” The main clause of that lead sentence could therefore also read as “the shape of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape”—which means that it’s a tautology or a needless, circuitous repetition of the same idea, statement, or word.

It’s really a wonder how such an obvious tautology could crop up in the lead sentence of a story written by as many as three reporters; one would have thought that at least one of them would have noticed it and objected to it. But since this obviously didn’t happen, perhaps the section editor or the editor and chief could have blue-penciled the offending clause construction and supplied a better word than “configuration.”

This is all Monday quarterbacking, of course, so what we need to do now is figure out how to get rid of the tautology in that sentence. My first instinct is to replace “configuration” with “contours,” but a quick check with my dictionary tells me that “contours,” while a tad different in semantics, is also practically synonymous with “configuration.” Another possible word is “character,” but on second thought it sounds somewhat judgmental to me. (Now I can appreciate the predicament of the writers and editors when they were making their word choices for that sentence! My advantage over them, of course, is hindsight and the luxury of time.)

At any rate, I think I’ll settle for the word “makings”—it means “potentiality”—as the most semantically appropriate choice for that sentence:

“The makings of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape, with another possible team emerging and two popular evangelists flexing muscle.”

At the very least, it gets rid of the tautology in the original sentence for good.

Newspaper B:
“Even if it’s a red letter day, people from all walks of life will paint the town yellow on Friday as they pay tribute to the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was assassinated 26 years ago while fighting for Philippine democracy.”   

First things first: the compound term “red letter day” needs a hyphen between “red” and “letter.” When we do that, “red-letter day” becomes a legitimate modifier that means “of special significance.” Without that hyphen, “red letter day” becomes literal and its meaning becomes difficult to figure out.

I’m also bothered by the mixing of so many metaphors and figurative expressions in that sentence. The metaphors there are, of course, “red-letter day” and “paint the town yellow,” while the figurative expressions are “from all walks of life,” “pay tribute,” and “while fighting for Philippine democracy.” The use of “red-letter day” is perfectly acceptable usage, of course, but “paint the town yellow” as a variation of the metaphor “paint the town red” is semantically questionable. The expression “paint the town red” means “going out for a night out with lots of fun and drinking,” and the use of “red” is actually an allusion to the kind of unruly behavior that results in much blood being spilled.

Now, the writer’s unilateral changing of “red” to “yellow” in the metaphor “paint the town red” violates the three major attributes of a true idiom, which is that its words are not compositional and not substitutable and that the idiom itself is not modifiable. When we say that an idiom is not compositional, this means we can’t compose or construct an idiom from the individual meanings of its component words. When we say that the words of an idiom are not substitutable, this means that when any of its words is replaced with a related word or even a close synonym, the idiom collapses and loses its intended meaning. And when we say that an idiom is not modifiable, this means that changing the way the words of an idiom are put together or inflected alters its meaning or, worse, changes it beyond recognition. In sum, “paint the town yellow” is a false, semantically unwarranted expression that shouldn’t have been used in that lead sentence.

The figurative expressions are “from all walks of life” and “pay tribute” are perfectly acceptable usage in that lead sentence, but to say that the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. was assassinated 26 years ago “while fighting for Philippine democracy” is to go overboard semantically. That he did fight for Philippine democracy is beyond question, but to say that he was assassinated while in the act of doing so is too much of a stretch. It would perhaps be more prudent to simply say that he was assassinated “when he returned to the Philippines to fight for Philippine democracy.”

Overall, then, I would suggest the following reconstruction of the original lead sentence in that newspaper to make it more on the level semantically:

“It will be a red-letter day on Friday when Filipinos from all walks of life pay tribute to the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was assassinated 26 years ago when he returned to the Philippines to fight for Philippine democracy.”

Newspaper C:
“MANILA, Philippines - With the rising popularity of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are being torn between him and Sen. Manuel Roxas II in their quest for the party’s standard-bearer in the 2010 elections.”

When you are “torn between” two lovers, as the old song goes, it means that you love both and couldn’t decide whom to choose. On the other hand, when you are “being torn between” two lovers, that means you are literally and physically being torn apart by some outside force between two people whom you love—and you are bound to be physically harmed in the process. That is the fundamental difference between the idiom “torn between” and the literal expression “being torn between”—the first is a figurative adjectival phrase, and the second is a literal verb phrase.

For this reason, I think that lead sentence will be much better off grammatically and semantically when shorn of the verb “being” before “torn.” Also, I think the use of the word “quest” is a little bit too subjective and melodramatic for what should be an objective news story; “choice” would be a more level-headed word.

So here’s the sentence as improved:

“MANILA, Philippines - With the rising popularity of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are torn between him and Sen. Manuel Roxas II as their choice of party standard-bearer for the 2010 elections.”

Newspaper D:
“Malacañang apparently needed former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needed it—at least when the subject was the 2010 elections.”

On the face of it, there seems to be nothing grammatically wrong with this lead sentence of a headline story—until we reach the latter part that refers to the 2010 elections in the past tense. We then realize that there’s a serious disconnect or inconsistency in the use of tense between the main clause and the parenthetical that follows it.

Indeed, since the matter is still unfolding and unresolved anyway, we can make that sentence grammatically and semantically aboveboard by putting all of its verbs in the present tense. Look:

“Malacañang apparently needs former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needs it—at least when the subject is the 2010 elections.”
 
Now we can say that all four problematic lead sentences of the leading broadsheets are as grammatically and semantically excellent as we can make them.

-----
What do you think of the state of English usage in the Philippine media today? Has it improved or has it worsened? Why do you think so? Click the Reply button to post your thoughts on Jose Carillo’s English Forum.

[maxsims]

“Malacañang apparently needs former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needs it—at least when the subject isthe 2010 elections.”
 
Now we can say that all four problematic lead sentences of the leading broadsheets are as grammatically and semantically excellent as we can make them.

Well, almost........

[Joe Carillo]

Done. Thanks!

[maxsims]

From the front page of the Manila Times (internet edition) yesterday:


According to the 2009 Forbes Asia Philippines Rich List that ranked 40 of the wealthiest in the Philippines, mall mogul Henry Sy remained to be the country’s wealthiest with a net worth of $3.8 billion.

[Joe Carillo]

The form “remained to be” in that sentence is incorrect usage on two counts. First, in the context of that sentence, the verb "remain" should be in the present tense "remains." Second, the verb “remain” means “to continue” or “to go on being.” The sense of “be” is therefore integral to the word “remain,” so it's superfluous or redundant to use “be” in tandem with that verb. “Remains” can do the job very well as a stand-alone verb.

That sentence should then be corrected as follows:

“According to the 2009 Forbes Asia Philippines Rich List that ranked 40 of the wealthiest in the Philippines, mall mogul Henry Sy remains the country’s wealthiest with a net worth of $3.8 billion.”

Of course, from an editing standpoint, that lead sentence can be rendered much more concisely as follows:

“According to the top 40 rankings of the 2009 Forbes Asia Philippines Rich List, mall mogul Henry Sy remains the country’s wealthiest with a net worth of $3.8 billion.” (29 words from the original 35, or a savings of 20.7%)

[maxsims]

From the front page of today's Manila Times internet edition:


EDITORIAL
Food security, higher GDP

The standard argument against crafting a national food security program anchored on producing for our own need plus a production surplus which would then serve as a buffer stock is this: It is always cheaper to import our food needs from more efficient producers, including rice, our basic staple.

[Joe Carillo]

Except for its use of the nonrestrictive "which" instead of the restrictive "that" (which is probably the writer's stylistic preference), the grammar of that sentence is actually grammatically airtight. Its construction, however, forces a 29-word noun phrase to become the subject of the sentence. For clarity, I have always advocated sentence constructions that put the operative verb as close as possible to its referent noun, and that make referent nouns as short and manageable as possible. If asked to improve that sentence, I would therefore seize the tail of the cat, so to speak, and put that tail up front as follows:

"This is the standard argument against crafting a national food security program anchored on producing for our own need plus a production surplus that would then serve as a buffer stock: It is always cheaper to import our food needs from more efficient producers, including rice, our basic staple."



 

[maxsims]

Joe,

I wasn't concerned with the "which" or "that" argument in this instance (although I'm happy with the former).  My objection was to:

"...It is always cheaper to import our food needs from more efficient producers, including rice, our basic staple...."

Here we have rice being labelled as a more efficient producer!

And, is not "needs' surplus in "food needs"?

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, Max, I think your concern isn't misplaced. On closer scrutiny, that second sentence does have a misplaced modifying phrase, "including rice, our basic staple," which can be construed to be modifying "producers" by virtue of proximity. I must say that it would be quite tricky to reconstruct that sentence without somehow eliciting a sense of modifier misplacement or structural glitch, even if only mild or semantically harmless, but I'll give it a try. Here goes:

"It is always cheaper to import our food needs, including rice that's our basic staple, from more efficient producers."

This construction is, of course, a more structurally sound alternative to the the following four rewrites, all of which sound to me flaky:

"It is always cheaper to import our food needs, including rice, which is our basic staple, from more efficient producers."

"It is always cheaper to import our food needs, including rice, our basic staple, from more efficient producers."

"It is always cheaper to import our food needs, including our basic staple that is rice, from more efficient producers."

"It is always cheaper to import our food needs, including our basic staple which is rice, from more efficient producers."

The word "needs" looks to me a harmless grammatical flourish that makes the sentence sound better, so perhaps we should leave it be.

What do you think?

[maxsims]

Thank you for asking my opinion.  I have two:

(1) It is unnecessary to tell the readers of The Manila Times that their basic staple is rice.  If they haven't learned that by now, they probably can't read, in which case they wouldn't be bothering with The Times.

(2) If we must tell them, then let's do it as an aside, utilising parentheses (it's easier to spell "brackets!) thus: "It is always cheaper to import our food needs (including our staple, rice) from more efficient producers."

By the way, I trust the above is not government policy?

[Joe Carillo]

To people who are highly literate in English, the emphasis on rice as "our basic staple" in that editorial might sound like overkill. Based on my personal recollection, however, the general assumption in Philippine newspaper journalism is that the average newspaper reader has an English reading comprehension level of an educated person 14 to 16 years of age. Taking this into account, the use of the phrase "our basic staple" to put rice in better context in that editorial might not be altogether uncalled for.

As to your suggestion that a contextualizer like "our basic staple" is better treated as a parenthetical, I agree with the idea 100 percent. I think it's a very neat way of preventing such qualifying phrases from muddling what would otherwise be clear, straightforward sentence constructions.

[maxsims]

A top story from today's Manila Times internet edition:


President visits Manalo’s wake

 
President Gloria Arroyo on Wednesday night went to the wake of the late Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) executive minister and supreme leader Eraño Manalo immediately upon her arrival from a visit to Libya.

In a statement upon her 8:55 p.m. arrival at the Centennial Terminal 2 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Pasay City, the President expressed her grief over the demise of Manalo.

The President said that the demise of the leader of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) was not only a loss to INC but to the whole Filipino nation.

She spent around half an hour conversing with Manalo’s son and successor, Eduardo Manalo, at the INC Central Temple on Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City.
-- Angelo S. Samonte

Talk about padding!

[renzphotography]

Allow me to comment on the state of Philippine journalism education as far as English composition is concerned.

Unfortunately, there are many communication arts or journalism courses/programs ran by academically gifted people with little or no practical experience in journalism. As a result, the graduates of these programs have a difficult time adjusting to real world journalism.

I once worked in The Manila Times along with Mr. Carillo and so allow me to leak a little secret from the editorial desks. On many occasions, the lifestyle section had been short of material for publishing so we had no choice but to dig through the piles of unsolicited article contributions.

Despite our desperation we would only find three percent of the material print-worthy. To make things worse, out of the three percent over half required at least three hours of editing per article--all because of poor writing.

The common culprit is convoluted grammar. I suppose the academically gifted professors had the idea that plenty of adjectives and complex sentence structures would excite editors. However, it achieves just the opposite. In my case (though I was never an editor at The Manila Times) I would give the copy no more than five seconds (we are speed readers) and if the sentence construction is enough to give me a headache then off to the waste basket it goes.

The solution: writers must not say too many things in just one sentence. Just cut it up into several shorter sentences. A friend gave me a simple tip. He confines his sentences to just ten words and if he can't express his thoughts within that limit he comes up with several sentences instead.

Another thing, don't be afraid if you have grammar lapses--just promise not to do it again. You see editors can fix bad grammar (grudgingly) but editors cannot play guessing games and try to figure out what the writer is trying to say on account of the convoluted sentence construction.

On choice of words, I still remember looking at the billboard and reading the publisher's memo on the proper use of the word "self-styled" as against a genuine practitioner of a trade or profession. It had somehow left an impression on me on how critical the choice of words was to journalists.

[hill roberts]

Hi, Joe,
There are times when a preposition can be rather a weakness in
many English speakers.Frankly, I, too, am guilty of it at times. Another online broadsheet today wrote:
"...Dacer wrote Estrada..." In literal Spanish translation, the pre-
position "to" would appear to  read: "escribir a" or, write to....
In the Philippines, especially with the verb, "write", the preposition
is omitted, unlike in, say, the UK or Spain unless the noun "letter"
is included in the sentence:
"The letter I wrote to Mr Cruz..." becomes>
"I wrote Mr Cruz a letter indicating that..."
So, if I translate, loosely, in Spanish the sentence, it would be
like this:
"La carta que he escrito al Senor Cruz..." (escribir a)>the auxiliary verb "have"
in Spanish comes into the picture too, although, if I translated literally, in
Spanish, it would be: "Escribi una carta al Senor Cruz..."
"He escrito al Senor Cruz una carta indicando que..."
I've written a letter to Mr Cruz...


En

[Joe Carillo]

In English, the form "Dacer wrote Estrada"--with the preposition "to" elided or dropped--is actually a grammatically correct form in the same way as "Dacer wrote to Estrada." Writers have a choice which form to use. Personally, I favor the form without the "to" in constructions like the following:

"They wrote the manager to complain about the complicated procedure." (prepositional phrase as complement)
"They wrote the manager that the procedure is so complicated." (relative clause as complement)
"They wrote the manager questioning the complicated procedure." (gerund phrase as complement)

Sentences like these read and sound much better without the "to."

Anyway, for a quick review of preposition usage, check out Lessons 7, 8, 9, and 10 of this Forum's Getting to Know English section. The lessons can give you a firmer basis for using the correct preposition for particular grammatical situations.