Gleaner: Poorly Written Editorial!!

[Historian]

An editorial, quite simply, is an article that reflects the views of a newspaper. This is the only place in a credible newspaper where the views of that newspaper are explicitly stated.

I’ve chosen to comment on yesterday’s Jamaica Daily Gleaner editorial (posted on this forum by Karl) in a separate thread because my comments have nothing to do with the track and field controversy. Rather, I’m commenting on what is, unfortunately, a glaring example of surprisingly poor writing in a prestigious national newspaper (the Gleaner is not a message board, but rather a 175-year-old newspaper that employs professional writers, copy editors, etc.). That this poor writing appeared in its editorial column is particularly shocking to me.

Was this editorial written by a cub reporter (that is, by a beginning journalist)?!

1. Incorrect spelling: The Gleaner’s editorial writer spelt the name of Stephen Francis as “Steven”. Coach Francis’ first name is spelt “Stephen”.

2. Fact checking? In the fifth paragraph, the editorial mentioned a “quintet” of MVP athletes, and named all five. Actually, six MVP athletes are involved in the controversy.

3. Who is "Ms. Walker"? In paragraph eight, we suddenly see, for the first time, a sixth athlete identified as “Ms. Walker”! Who on earth is “Ms. Walker”? All the athletes mentioned in the editorial had a first name, except for this mysterious “Ms. Walker”!

Is Melaine so insignificant?

4. Incorrect spelling: Kaliese Spencer’s name is spelt incorrectly! This editorial writer spelt it as “Kalise”.

Now, in the newspaper industry, accuracy (along with objectivity) is of paramount importance. There is absolutely no room for errors, no matter how tiny, and this is something that’s drilled into journalism students repeatedly from their very first semester in college!

The term “hack journalism” recently became popular on this forum. A “hack writer” is someone whose job is to turn out last-minute stories. This editorial, in my opinion, is as accurate an example as we’ll find anywhere of journalism by a “hack writer”!!

[Historian]

Here's the Editorial

I’ve chosen to comment on yesterday’s Jamaica Daily Gleaner editorial (posted on this forum by Karl) in a separate thread because my comments have nothing to do with the track and field controversy. Rather, I’m commenting on what is, unfortunately, a glaring example of surprisingly poor writing in a prestigious national newspaper (the Gleaner is not a message board, but rather a 175-year-old newspaper that employs professional writers, copy editors, etc.). That this poor writing appeared in its editorial column is particularly shocking to me.

I forgot to paste the editorial in this thread (although it is already in the thread that Karl started). Anyway, here is the editorial that is being discussed:

Link: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...cleisure1.html
EDITORIAL - The embarrassment of Berlin

Published: Friday | August 14, 2009


The brouhaha between a number of Jamaican athletes and the local governing body on the eve of the World Championships was, to say the least, highly embarrassing to this country and its place as a global athletic power.

In the first place, that the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) felt empowered to intervene, and that the Jamaica Amateur Athletic Association (JAAA) acquiesced to the IAAF's request for the athletes to participate in the games, could well be interpreted by some as an inability on the part of Jamaica athletics authorities to handle its own affairs.

The matter also raises for the IAAF, with its increasing insistence on discipline and fair play in sport, where its issues of principle and opportunism converge or diverge.

But more immediately for Jamaica, this week's issue again underlines the need for an approach to the management of athletics that does justice to the country's status; one that is structured, fair, disciplined and predictable, eschewing hubris, ego, and wars of petty personalities, which was very much in evidence these past few days. Mr Steven Francis, we perceive, gorged on a heavy dose of this bilious potion.

The proximate cause of the imbroglio was the failure of Mr Francis' quintet - Asafa Powell, Shelly-Ann Fraser, Brigitte Foster-Hylton, Shericka Williams and Kalise Spencer - to attend a pre-games training camp, which the JAAA declared to be mandatory and of which it said all athletes ought to have known.

Mr Francis claims to have been ignorant that the camp was mandatory, but then went into a hubris-laden excoriation of its facilities and organisation. And when the JAAA announced a withdrawal of the athletes, it was Mr Francis' contention that it was all a personal attack on himself because, we suppose, of his sublime coaching skills.

The fact that Mr Francis is a great coach is unquestionable. On other matters, though, and in particular his relations with the JAAA, we are wont to question his judgement. We have seen a similar playbook before. Recall last year in Beijing.

Then, as now, and before, the JAAA was forced to back down; in this instance because of the IAAF's concerns that the absence of stars such as Mr Powell, Ms Fraser and Ms Walker would hurt the championship; not because of adherence to fundamental principles, or that it believed natural justice was at stake.

We are willing to give Mr Francis the benefit of the doubt that such camps are unnecessary and disruptive, and that he can better prepare his athletes in an environment of his own creation. That would probably be to the benefit of Jamaica.

But Mr Francis cannot - which appears to have been the case - impose his personal intent by fiat, oblivious of the programme and/or expectations of the governing body. Not unless Mr Francis presumes anarchy is best, or that he is engaged in creative destruction.

The athletes, too, are not children or sheep to be uncritically led around. We expect them to be of rational thought and principled action. They failed, to us, on these counts.

The JAAA must once and for all sort this matter out like intelligent adults, taking into account all views. Jamaican athletics is, after all, larger than the squaring off of bruised egos and management by hubris.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

[HL]

My 'secretary' saw (an read parts of) the Jamaican Observer newspaper for the first time last week when we visited Jamaica.

She has a degree in journalism.

I explained that the newspaper was just a tabloid.

Jamaica unfortunately does not hold efficiency and accuracy in high regard.

[Sickko]

Editorials as best as I know, especially having worked at both national dailies here, are written ONLY by the most senior people in the department and based on how this one was phrased a number of my colleagues in the media have guessed at who wrote it and there wa s adiscussion about it on Face Book yesterday.

[Sir X]

Most senior , my Lord .

[Gamma]

you called?

[Mosiah]

Fully agree!

However, the content is a lot more responsible than what we've seen from the Newsletter.