I despise the way most journalists write their stories. They start out by alluding to something that happened but you have to read way into the story to sort of “unwind” it to figure out what the hell they are talking about. And sometimes it’s never clear. Take this example: Man wanted in brutal carjacking. It starts off:
September 8, 2004 — The search for a suspect in a brutal carjacking continues in Algonquin and Lake in the Hills. The vehicle and another suspect were found in the north suburbs but the carjacking and shooting took place in Chicago.
The Lake in the Hills Police Department dispatchers fielded about a dozen calls from residents concerned about suspicious people in the area. As the search for the second suspect continues, a man taken into custody a couple of days ago after the carjacking and police chase has been transferred to Chicago
Police Department. Detectives are questioning him, but he has not been charged yet.
They refer to “the carjacking” as if we know what they are referring to. Oh–the BRUTAL one. That one. I see.
I hate this meandering, evasive, elusive, evocative type of writing. I prefer it to be direct. Plain. Start from the beginning, explain any context, clearly state conclusions and opinions.
