OF DIFFERENT POINTS NOT BEING YIELDED FROM SAME FACTS

Towards the end of the year, news stories have a habit of making a disappearing act. This means newsrooms often struggle to get content to fill up their regular broadcasts or publications. What can work is preparing for this lean period in advance, and setting aside backup stories. What won't certainly work is repeating the same facts in the hope of making different points.

In the newspaper article above, there no additional value in repeating the bit of information, especially in such close proximity.

It could be that the editor wanted to emphasise the shocking details of the scandal being reported.

But re-stating the same facts more than twice, amounts to a needless over-emphasis.

And, using the same wording, would likely make a reader wonder why the paper wants this particular bit of information stressed, or whether there's a hidden motive.

Either that, or it's a case of an absent-minded editor, not minding about editorial responsibilities.

EXAM RESULTS, MAD NEWSROOM DASH, CRAZY LISTS & INSANE ANALYSIS

Immediately after the announcement of the results for national examinations in Kenya, a mad dash ensues in newsrooms. The obsession of the moment becomes compiling a list of the top performers, and rankings, using all manner of parameters. And things can get crazy. Like how insane is it for the press to throw in a non-existent score, in the analysis?

In the published set of scores above, there's one that really stands out, among the outstanding performances.

Funny thing is that there isn't much of a big difference between that particular score and the ones before it, or even after.

If the top score is an 'A' followed by 'A-' then why would the editor throw in an 'A+' right after a bunch of A minuses? And bearing the same aggregate points an 'A-' performance?

Admittedly, it's not easy to put together such rankings at such a short notice, given that the information is largely sourced by making own contacts with parents or guardians of the students, because the government does not supply the data.

But due diligence and attention to details should always remain a top journalistic priority.

For allowing this error to pass through the editorial gatekeeping, this amounts to an epic fail.

OF HEADLINES AND EDITING HEADING NOWHERE

Processing of raw information is a painstaking yet indispensable activity, if the desired end product is high quality journalism. But sometimes, there appears to be more editorial disengagement than a meaningful collaboration, during the editing process.  This could lead to headlines heading nowhere.

In the headline for the newspaper article above, something is clearly amiss.

The sub-editor/headline writer most probably realised the space was inadequate to add another word that would have made the topline more sensible.

In line with the practise of chopping the content from the end, in the belief that the most important details are given priority from the beginning, a la inverted pyramid, a critical word was sacrificed.

Space constraint...well taken care of...But what is the resultant headline sensible?

Unless the intention is to indicate there is nothing to hide and the said scholarships are publicly being awarded, then the sense is warped, if not lost altogether.

This headline definitely needs a hospital admission!

ASSETS, DOUBLE NEGATIVES AND MEDIA CONFUSION

Confusion is not something any media outlet would want to propagate. A lot of motivation for the practise of journalism, is anchored on a need to make sense out of an abundance of confusion, especially in the information age. And this is then translates into a noble public interest service. That's why its perplexing to see confusing double negatives, evading editorial gatekeeping.

In the article above, the intention appears to have been to indicate that not all the main subject's assets, had been disclosed.

What we get instead is:

"...there could be some assets that have not been undisclosed."

This has the opposite effect of suggesting the said 'some assets' have been disclosed, which obviously contradicts the import of asserting that 'court documents also make no mention of any bank accounts'.

Does that make any sense to you?

Certainly not to me!