Reporters have set about murdering the Queen’s language. And sub-editors are letting them. Take a look:
“[…] although Raila has previously and publicly pronounced himself on this subject stating that the BBI report can only be endorsed or rejected in total at the ballot, the persuasion that the document can be reopened is indeed causing fresh puzzlement.”
This is a sentence from Sunday Standard’s lead story, “Top legal minds in ODM split over fresh push to amend BBI” (April 18).
What, pray, is to pronounce oneself? The Oxford Dictionary doesn’t know this frequent expression in Kenya’s media. From where did we get it?
Opacity aside, you can’t be repetitive, long-winded or routinely write two words where one would suffice and call that good journalism. When brevity is thrown out of the window, so is good reporting.
In the sentence above from The Standard’s story by Oscar Obonyo, count how many words are wasted. “[…] previously and publicly pronounced himself on this subject stating that the BBI report can only be endorsed or rejected in total at the ballot […],” blah, blah, blah.
How does “previously said that the BBI report can only be endorsed or rejected at the ballot” sound?
Then, “Some members shot down the proposals to amend the Bill as per Article 94 of the Constitution […].”
Meaning? Does Article 94 provide for how to amend a bill? Or does it state how an amendment should be “shot down”?
Similarly, “Orengo also shared a similar view in the Senate, warning that the role of Parliament cannot be merely ceremonial as per Article 94 of the Constitution.”
Again, meaning? Does Article 94 say Parliament’s role is “ceremonial?”
In both instances, “as per” threw a monkey wrench in the sentence. The writer didn’t know where to go after those two words. From a sample of many media stories, it’s evident that many reporters don’t.
What to do? When in doubt, check the Oxford.
Oh, and about this other story, which ran in the Sunday Nation headlined, “Reopening of BBI report splits Raila’s legal team,” both papers failed to answer an important question in readers’ minds.
Both headlines spoke of a push to “re-open” or “amend” the BBI report. Why this push? What requires amending?
Clearly, both papers got fixated with a “split in ODM.” That’s shallow. Subject for possible amendment in a constitutional bill is the weightier matter for citizens. That both papers missed it is a huge omission. That nobody thought to dig for this critical information – no evidence to the contrary was provided – is worse.
2 thoughts on “English made in Kenya and huge omissions blunt the news”
One of the problems with language use is that speaking tends to influence writing. Two, your Oxford Dictionary prescription is a potent one and serious reporters and editors (news and copy) may benefit. Three, with the razor-thin newsrooms, putting reports into context is slowly but painfully disappearing. Fourth, a request. Can the Media Council of Kenya start training sub-editors/copy editors in its role as a regulator? Columbia University journalism teacher and author James B. Stewart says every writer needs an editor. Well, training can/should be done from the newsrooms, but it not happening. Again, it is mind-boggling that the MCK does not train sub-editors while writers and reporters benefit from Media Council programmes and compete regularly for its awards.
Touché. However, we say THROW OUT THE WINDOW, not OUT OF THE WINDOW