Writing, Law, and MUCH MORE!

Many readings for this week, so where shall we begin?
The Book, that's where. Chapter 8: Writing to be read.
Quite simple really... write so that people may want to actually read what you have to say. What makes your opinion so great and important? Prove it. The example of Barbara Ehrenreich is actually pretty good because the book that I've read impressed me. She not only investigated poverty and the minimum wage in our country, but she also lived it. She worked a few jobs under minimum wage and learned what it was like to live on a few dollars an hour in tough jobs. This, in their example, is good reporting which leads to good writing. In her case, she lived it, so she knew the material she was writing about incredibly well. All advice here makes sense: be clear, be precise, etc. But the real thing, especially in feature writing, is the "show don't tell". Readers have to know what you are trying to get across to them, and the best way to do that is show it to them.

Chapter 22: Law. Don't commit libel. If you do, and you're sued or something, the book offers ways to defend yourself. If you're telling the truth, you have to be able to prove it. If it involves the government, privilege is another defense that a journalist can use by saying the information was government privilege. the actual malice test is basically a way to win if you can show that you intended no harm by saying what you did. Invasion of privacy will never be a problem for me because I definitely do not plan on trespassing on people's property to get a story. I simply don't want to know what the mother thinks about her son's arrest that badly.

George Orwell's "politics and the English language" was actually sort of interesting. Orwell talks about how because we have dumb thoughts, our speech comes out dumb... and vice versa. Many metaphors are now being used without any real knowledge of their meaning. Some people use big words simply because they sound intelligent, but have no knowledge as to what they mean or why they use them. He calls this "pretentious diction", which I like. He says to use the active when it's possible and to avoid the passive and to cut words out wherever possible. However, the next reading contradicts some of this.
In "five characteristics of scholarly prose" we are told to emphasize nouns rather than verbs (Why?) and use static verbs rather than action verbs (no??). My favorite is this: "The simple use of passive voice does not make a style academic - but it helps!" Wow... really? Why would one read a paper with all static and passive verbs? Wasn't the point of chapter 8 to "write to be read?" I doubt anyone would read what this paper advises me to write.
Lastly, the Three Mile Island disaster paper was about how the press handled the fiasco. I found it interesting how a good 500 people were covering the story at one point. And yet, the coverage was mostly by AP and a few media outlets. the New York Times alone had 8 reporters on the story. the story's importance was mostly in the "so what?" and the "what if?" emphasis about them. This is why the story was so huge.