Jackson Free Press

The Clarion-Ledger today outdoes its own pitiful editorial-writing with a bizarre ode to John Grisham that is ostensibly about the Dickie Scruggs arrest for bribery. Beyond simply terrible writing, the edit-boyz state the following as fact:

Scruggs' attorney, Joey Langston, was the target of GOP barbs for receiving legal fees given him by Hood in Democrat Hood's re-election three weeks before.

Now, when you get finished untwisting this sentence, and putting subjects where they are supposed to be, you discover that they are saying that Jim Hood gave legal fees to Joey Langston three weeks ago during his re-election campaign.

I'm confused: Did Jim Hood pay Joey Langston legal fees three weeks ago? Or during his campaign? Out of his pocket?

Didn't the company that lost the lawsuit actually pay Joey Langston legal fees?

Our daily "newspaper" is so embarrassing.

Previous Comments

ID

115886

Comment

The way I interpret it, Jim Hood gave Joey Langston the legal fees.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2007-11-30T13:53:09-06:00

ID

115887

Comment

They are saying Hood gave Langston the legal fees. While the money came from the company in the lawsuit Hood had a lot to do with the amount of money Langston received. Hood worked the whole deal. The CL isn't perfect and neither is the JFP. I've seen some bad writing and headlines that were out of context in the JFP before.

Author

jackbauer

Date

2007-11-30T16:20:24-06:00

ID

115888

Comment

I'd say it's more than a typo above. When the C-L is gettin' that busy with the innuendo in their editorials, they should say what they want to say more plainly. Also, it's worth noting the Donna's criticism -- the passive voice of the editorial writing in the Clarion-Ledger -- is deserved derision not just because of its grammar, but because the passive voice is a device for getting the C-L off the hook for its own involvement, reporting, lack thereof and so on. If the C-L wants to go after Hood in this editorial for making sure Joey Langston's firm was paid handsomely THEN. SAY. IT. Otherwise, the third-person-preterite-passive nonsense deserves to be criticized.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-11-30T16:47:58-06:00

ID

115889

Comment

Especially because it gives the wrong idea. The JFP knows exactly what happened in that case; we've reported it several times. And Hood did not "give" legal fees to Langston. That's misleading, either intentionally or out of incompetence. Neither is comforting. Jack, if you want to criticize the JFP on the merits, do it with specifics. Otherwise, you're going to sound like you're here for the wrong reasons. I've already asked you if you're the guy who has been suspended who has left me several long phone messages. Are you? A straight answer please.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-30T17:21:27-06:00

ID

115890

Comment

We REVIEWED active/passive voice today in English II. You know, the one with tenth graders. I'm just saying ;)

Author

emilyb

Date

2007-11-30T18:07:42-06:00

ID

115891

Comment

Right. It's the difference between: A. John made a mistake. B. Mistakes were made. It's as if they search for ways to get the most passives in one sentence. I really don't know how the writing leaves the building that way. Is it an institutional problem? Have they been doing it so long they don't know how bad it sounds? Are they determined to ensure that no one takes responsibility for their actions. WHAT?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-30T18:49:21-06:00

ID

115892

Comment

It's as if they search for ways to get the most passives in one sentence. I really don't know how the writing leaves the building that way. Is it an institutional problem? Have they been doing it so long they don't know how bad it sounds? Are they determined to ensure that no one takes responsibility for their actions. WHAT? It's their attempt at Authoritative Newspaper Voice (ANV). The end game is to divorce themselves from responsibility. "Scruggs' attorney, Joey Langston, was the target of GOP barbs..." TRANSLATION: We at the C-L are not saying it's true, false, or whether it was swiftboating, rumormongering or anything in between...we just damn well wanna REPEAT it, so we'll make it passive. Hell, we're not even quoting real people or actual sources, just the "GOP" and it's team of barbists (barbers?). But that's cool, you know, because here at the C-L we hear all and know all, so why attribute sources? for receiving legal fees given him by Hood in Democrat Hood's re-election three weeks before." So now we get to the meat of it...the innuendo that the editorialist wants to toss out as red meat to the lions. (Maybe that's why they call it the Clarion-Lion? Wait...that's not it. It SOUNDS like Lion though, at least a little.) Ya know, the whole editorial is b.s. -- clearly something hacked together at the last minute to create the bizarre frame where the call to action seems to be "shake your head at the silliness of it all." Whatever. Yes, we're guilty of typos and bad edits in the JFP. But take a line like this one: "The same Republican U.S. Justice Department which is prosecuting the case has been criticized for targeting Democrats, including the bribery prosecution of Coast attorney Paul Minor, now serving an 11-year sentence for his involvement in loans and contributions to judges;" The concept of "which" and "that" is grade school grammar, as is the entire concept of a sentence fragment. There's always the default possibility when reading the C-L's Editorial page...maybe they were drunk.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2007-11-30T19:07:12-06:00

ID

115893

Comment

On that fabulous note, I'm going to Chimneyville! Later, gators.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-30T19:18:29-06:00

ID

115894

Comment

Though active voice makes writing more interesting, sometimes there is a need to use passive voice. PERHAPS the Clarion Ledger did not have 100 percent clarity as to the exact details of the issue at hand; therefore, the decision to use passive voice in relaying the information was made.

Author

orchid69sprig

Date

2007-11-30T20:48:22-06:00

ID

115895

Comment

Are you using passives on purpose here? ;-) "Decisions were made ..." is a prime teaching example of the problem with the passive voice. Who made the damn decision? Just say it. Obviously, it is a serious problem if they wrote an editorial about a topic they don't understand or haven't researched thoroughly enough to use the active voice! Writers, and journalists, seldom have a good reason to use the passive voice, much less pack several in the same editorial, paragraph or even sentence. It's lazy writing, and editing. Everyone does it sometimes, and occasionally it works OK (very seldom), but passives are the first problem that editors should strike from writing. And if you need to use a passive to cover up poor reporting, well, then your problem is bigger than overusing the passive voice. BTW, my second writing pet peeve behind passives is the overuse of "there is" and "there are"—basically for the same reason that passives are so bad. In most examples, that construction means flat, lazy writing—and a writer who didn't take time to fix a bad first draft (which we all write; we just can't be content to let first drafts out in public). And I don't get an editor who would stand for it. Remarkable.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-11-30T23:37:35-06:00