Sometimes it isn’t bad grammar but faulty figurative language and loose body English that can ruin the story output of media or the reputation of its practitioners.
I’ll go straight to the point and list four jaw-dropping specimens of flawed journalism in yesterday’s issue of three major Metro Manila broadsheets:
(1) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Highly sociable luxury vehicles“SHARIFF AGUAK, MAGUINDANAO — A fleet of luxury vehicles Thursday greeted soldiers searching for weapons at the sprawling home of Maguindanao warlord Andal Ampatuan Sr., whose family has been blamed for the Nov. 23 massacre of 57 people.”
(2) Philippine Daily Inquirer: “Persuasion flights” a la Broadway twice overMPATUAN, Maguindanao — The Philippine Air Force planes and helicopters on Thursday staged another round of “persuasion flights” over the province to convince suspects of the massacre of at least 57 people, including 30 journalists, to surrender.
“Two bomber planes and helicopters staged a show of force within Maguindanao as followers of a Muslim clan blamed for the Nov. 23 mass killings were reportedly seen massing up.”
(3) Agence France Presse: TV reporter poses a la Rambo in public“SHARIFF AGUAK, Maguindanao: Star-struck police forgot they were guarding weapons seized from the massacre suspects when a celebrity journalist arrived and picked up a machine gun to pose as Rambo.
“‘It’s Julius Babao,’ gushed a half-dozen members of the police in the capital of Maguindanao province, neglecting the guns in their rush to crowd around the television news anchor for souvenir pictures.”
(4) The Manila Times: What had “driven” the good Catholic bishop?“A high-ranking official of the Catholic Church on Thursday was driven to urge President Gloria Arroyo to declare martial law in Basilan province after the beheading of a plywood factory worker by suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf bandits.
“Bishop Martin Jumoad of Basilan said in a radio interview that he is calling on the President to put the province under martial rule if that is the only way to combat violence in the war-torn region.”
MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: Let’s now analyze the language of the five passages I listed above and see how they can be improved (all underlining mine):
(1) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Highly sociable luxury vehicles“SHARIFF AGUAK, MAGUINDANAO —
A fleet of luxury vehicles Thursday greeted soldiers searching for weapons at the sprawling home of Maguindanao warlord Andal Ampatuan Sr., whose family has been blamed for the Nov. 23 massacre of 57 people.”
The fleet of luxury vehicles “greeted the soldiers searching for weapons”? Those vehicles must be highly sociable indeed, automatically activating themselves to say “Hi!” and “Hello!” and “Cheers!” to the soldiers as the latter broke into the garage of the Ampatuans. The vehicles must have gleefully welcomed the soldiers by honking and revving up their engines in unison!
These cartoonish images of the raid couldn’t have possibly taken place, of course, but they certainly are evoked by the misuse of figurative language in that lead sentence. So let’s get this straight from a semantic standpoint: Vehicles, no matter how luxurious and modern, aren’t designed to greet automatically. They remain inert and silent unless they are started and their bells and whistles switched on.
I therefore suggest the good, old figurative expression for such situations: “the sight of (something) greeted (the viewers)”:
“SHARIFF AGUAK, MAGUINDANAO —
The sight of so many luxury vehicles Thursday greeted soldiers searching for weapons at the sprawling home of Maguindanao warlord Andal Ampatuan Sr., whose family has been blamed for the Nov. 23 massacre of 57 people.”
(2) Philippine Daily Inquirer: “Persuasion flights” a la Broadway twice over“AMPATUAN, Maguindanao — The Philippine Air Force planes and helicopters on Thursday
staged another round of "persuasion flights" over the province to convince suspects of the massacre of at least 57 people, including 30 journalists, to surrender.
“Two bomber planes and helicopters
staged a show of force within Maguindanao as followers of a Muslim clan blamed for the Nov. 23 mass killings were reportedly seen massing up.”
I submit that the repeated, almost impertinent use of the verb “stage” in the above story is unwarranted and unfair language, for it gives the distinct impression that the reporter thinks that the “persuasion flights” were being done simply for show. The sense of bias against the Philippine Air Force in the use of that word is very palpable, whether or not the writer or desk editor was conscious of it.
According to my
Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, the meaning of the transitive verb “stage” in that context is as follows:
“1: to produce (as a play) on a stage
“2: to produce or cause to happen for public view or public effect <
stage a track meet> <
stage a hunger strike>
I don’t think the usage in question falls under any of these two denotations of “stage.” I think the “persuasion flights” were for real to thwart a real-world threat from armed rogue elements. I therefore suggest that a more appropriate word choice—one that doesn’t smack of bias—is “undertake” or, alternatively, “made,” as in the following rewrite of those sentences:
“AMPATUAN, Maguindanao — The Philippine Air Force planes and helicopters on Thursday
undertook another round of "persuasion flights" over the province to convince suspects in the massacre of at least 57 people, including 30 journalists, to surrender.
“Two bomber planes and helicopters
made the show of force within Maguindanao as followers of a Muslim clan blamed for the Nov. 23 mass killings were reportedly seen massing up.”
(3) Agence France Presse: TV reporter poses a la Rambo in public“SHARIFF AGUAK, Maguindanao: Star-struck police forgot they were guarding weapons seized from the massacre suspects
when a celebrity journalist arrived and picked up a machine gun to pose as Rambo.
“‘It’s Julius Babao,’ gushed a half-dozen members of the police in the capital of Maguindanao province, neglecting the guns in their rush to crowd around the television news anchor for souvenir pictures.”
I must admit that strictly speaking, this isn’t really a grammar or language problem, so I would take it up as a case of bad body English instead. For those who happen to be unfamiliar with the term “body English,” its dictionary definition is “bodily motions made in a usually unconscious effort to influence the progress of a propelled object (as a ball).” When I play billiards, for instance, the twisting or gyrations of my body aimed at influencing the trajectory of the ball is my body English.
(Although I’m providing a link to the story as carried by The Manila Times, I also must make it clear that that paper’s reporters and editors are blameless in this regard, for the paper simply ran a wire services story by the Agence France Presse.)
Anyway, for many months now, I have been afraid that something odd like this might finally happen, having seen on several occasions Julius Babao and his co-anchors of the ABS-CBN TV show “Triple X” act very much like secret agents a la James Bond—with sound and visual effects of gunfire, 3-D gimmickry, incendiary explosions, and screeching tires—in both the introductory credits and sometimes in the program proper itself of the crime reality show. I couldn’t help but get the feeling that these TV reporters were actually acting out on screen the ultimate fantasy of being investigator, police, posse, prosecutor, judge, and executioner—plus reporter on the CSI (crime scene investigation), and I would often wonder if their station management wasn’t terribly overworking them on something they shouldn’t—or aren’t really cut out—to do, and I would also wonder where such a fantasy would eventually lead them in their professional lives as journalists.
Well, we now have an inkling of where. Based on the Agence France Presse report, Julius Babao—on TV reportorial assignment in violence-torn Shariff Aguak—actually took the extreme liberty of picking up one of the machine guns seized from the massacre suspects and posing with the weapon a la Rambo. There’s no better proof in my mind that media could sometimes fall into the trap of mixing fantasy with reality—with all the attendant dangers to their credibility and to the public interest that such mixing might give rise to.
(Take note that I have refrained from commenting on the aspect of that news report stating that when Julius Babao made his Rambo pose, “star-struck police forgot they were guarding weapons seized from the massacre suspects.” In another place and in another time, those policemen probably would have been reprimanded for that, but I suppose that in this case, even their superior officers themselves were probably too busy gawking at and enjoying Julius Babao’s on-the-spot impersonation and theatrics. Our star-struck culture is a sociological phenomenon that perhaps our social scientists can look deeper into, for I must admit that I don’t have the competence to make an analysis of it.)
(4) The Manila Times: What had “driven” the good Catholic bishop?“A high-ranking official of the Catholic Church on Thursday
was driven to urge President Gloria Arroyo to declare martial law in Basilan province after the beheading of a plywood factory worker by suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf bandits.
“Bishop Martin Jumoad of Basilan said in a radio interview that he is calling on the President to put the province under martial rule if that is the only way to combat violence in the war-torn region.”
It’s probably relevant to ask here: Why was Bishop Martin Jumoad of Basilan “driven” to act the way he was reported to have acted? What drove him to urge President Gloria Arroyo to declare martial law in Basilan province? Was it a driver—his or somebody else’s—who drove him in the physical sense? Was it concern for his personal safety? Was it fear? Indeed, who or what could that “driver” be?
This is the problem with passive sentence constructions like that news-story lead—the doer of the “driving” action is unknown and unnamed, so the readers are left to their own resources to figure it out. Another big problem, of course, is the transitive character of the verb “driven” in that sentence; as such, it needs a direct object for it to work properly (“Driven by what?”), but it doesn’t have one or—from a reportorial standpoint—the direct object is unnamed or unknown.
This is why I think it would have been more prudent for the reporter or desk editor to eliminate the source of uncertainty in that sentence by knocking off “driven” altogether and let the verb “urge” do the job all by its lonesome:
“A high-ranking official of the Catholic Church on Thursday
urged President Gloria Arroyo to declare martial law in Basilan province after the beheading of a plywood factory worker by suspected members of the Abu Sayyaf bandits.
“Bishop Martin Jumoad of Basilan said in a radio interview that he is calling on the President to put the province under martial rule if that is the only way to combat violence in the war-torn region.”
After all, the second sentence makes the good bishop’s motivation for his action very clear—no matter what really had “driven” him to do so.
SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:(1) Philippine Star: The case of the missing first-person subject“MANILA, Philippines -
Teaching for almost 10 years now, after retiring successfully from the corporate world in my early 30’s, made me realize and truly appreciate the incomparable benefits and privileges of teaching. In fact, I can’t help but compare them with my experiences
from my previous jobs in the corporate.”
I must admit that I’m still at a loss as to what to make of the first sentence of the passage above, which is the opening paragraph of an article on the benefits and privileges of teaching. I want to believe that there’s nothing grammatically or structurally wrong with it despite the absence of a formal subject, which, of course, should be the first person “I.”
On the other hand, I have this queasy feeling that the author didn’t want an “I” in that sentence because she probably belongs to the old school of nonnative English learners who were taught that using the self-centered “I” is a cardinal sin, so they would rather convolute their sentence to avoid or reduce its use to the barest minimum. (I had the same compulsion for many years until—thank God!—I finally realized it was sheer nonsense to avoid “I” in writing, particularly in first-person narratives and personal essays.)
Anyway, without saying that the original passage above is grammatically or structurally flawed, I offer the following “I”-using version as an alternative:
“MANILA, Philippines –
After teaching for almost 10 years now following my successful retirement from the corporate world while still in my early 30s, I now realize and fully appreciate the incomparable benefits and privileges of teaching. In fact, I can’t help but compare them with my experiences
from my previous corporate jobs.”
Now I’d like to ask Forum members: Whether you are prescriptivist or descriptivist in your English, what do you think? Is the writer correct in using “me” to be the indirect subject of that first sentence of hers, or have I gone overboard in insisting that the first-person “I” must make its presence felt in that sentence?
(2) Manila Bulletin: Really bad grammar lapses into incoherenceWhen desk editors either become careless or lazy, expect to read incoherent passages like this in your newspaper:
“
Filipino consumers confidence as expected
took a hit with the typhoon damages affecting businesses and the economy but based on the latest central bank survey, consumer sentiments 12-month outlook is still on the positive side.
“‘
(But) despite the decline in consumer sentiment (more) think that they are better off now than they were a year ago, when the effects of the global financial crisis were more pronounced,’ the BSP’s fourth quarter Consumer Expectations Survey (CES) report said.”
It’s obvious that the incomprehensible passage above wasn’t copyedited at all, so I will now attempt to copyedit simply as an illustrative example:
“As expected, Filipino consumer confidence took a hit from the damage wrought by the recent typhoons on business and the economy. Still, based on the latest Central Bank survey, the 12-month outlook for consumer sentiment remains on the positive side.
“Despite the decline in consumer sentiment, more people think they are better off now than they were a year ago, when the effects of the global financial crisis were more pronounced, according to the BSP’s fourth quarter Consumer Expectations Survey (CES).”
Note that since the directly quoted statement is unsustainable due to the grammar patches (the supplied parenthetical words) and some cryptic grammar elements, I saw it fit to knock off the quote and simply do a paraphrase.
(3) Manila Bulletin: Badly edited, almost incoherent statement“CEBU CITY — Members of the Cebu City Council on Wednesday
expressed frustrations over what they claim as dissatisfactory, the explanations given by representatives of the country’s major oil companies
on why prices of petroleum in Cebu is higher than in Manila and Mindanao.
“The City Council invited the officials of Petron Corporation, Chevron Philippines, Inc. and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation during its regular session on Wednesday
to explain said discrepancy in the price of oil.”
In the first sentence of the passage above, the correct usage of the verb phrase “expressed frustrations” should be “expressed frustration,” with “frustration” in its singular form. The phrase “what they claim as dissatisfactory, the explanations” is grammatically truncated and need to be restructured; another thing, perhaps the word “dissatisfactory” is better replaced by the more common word “unsatisfactory.” And the phrase “why prices of petroleum in Cebu is higher than in Manila and Mindanao” contains a subject-verb disagreement (the subject is the plural “prices,” so the verb should be in the plural form “are” instead of the singular “is.”)
The second paragraph of the passage uses wordy legalese—“said discrepancy in the price of oil”—that needs to be converted into plain, concise reportorial language—“the price discrepancy.”
Here’s how that passage might have been copyedited:
“CEBU CITY — Members of the Cebu City Council on Wednesday
expressed frustration over what they claim as the unsatisfactory explanation given by representatives of the country’s major oil companies on
why prices of petroleum in Cebu are higher than in Manila and Mindanao.
“The City Council invited the officials of Petron Corporation, Chevron Philippines, Inc. and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation during its regular session on Wednesday
to explain the price discrepancy.”
