We have discussed several times in class how journalists are able to add their voice an opinion to their articles through their sly word choices. For example, in the profile we read on the clown musicians, the author was able to add hints of sarcasm to his article without outwardly poking fun at his subjects. For this weeks journal I chose to write on an article from the New York Post. The article is called “Face of a ‘Rapist’” and is written by Lorena Mongelli, Larry Celona, and Dan Mangan. This article is a perfect example of the saying, too many cooks spoil the soup.
I have never in my life read an article about a rapist, that was so over the top and kitsch that in the end I didn’t know who to have sympathy for. The author(s) of this article worked so hard to the pin the perp as an evil no-good-doer that in the end I sympathized with him. Well...maybe I didn’t sympathize, but I was so frustrated at the writing in this article that by the end I felt I had to side with the bad guy.
The “rapist”, (the reporters are careful and quote this coined name) never did rape the girl. It is not to say he wouldn’t have if he had enough time, but he never did. It seemed that the authors were so worried that because of his lack of action, the readers wouldn’t take the story seriously. In turn, they added as much negative descriptions as possible when talking about the perp. It shouldn’t be necessary when describing a potential rapist to shove the ideas surrounding this person down the readers throat. The reader’s red flag should go up with alarm when reading about an attacker regardless of his actions. The mere act of pushing these ideas in the readers face raises my red flag for a whole other reason.
have been reading a lot of profiles in preparation for our upcoming project. I think that the most successful profiles I have read do a fantastic job at catching the essence of a person through descriptive writing. When I stumbled upon this article I realized there is a point when description can actually become too over the top. For example, the reporters write “F--k you! Get the f--k out of here! I know what you f--king look like! Screamed the feisty fashion-firm employee during the frightening attack that she repelled early sunday, she recalled.” It may be the authors word choice here that lacks the provocation of sympathy from me. Feisty fashion-firm employee? There is nothing about that choice of adjective that makes me worry or sympathize with this poor woman, who anyone should have sympathy for because she was attacked. Instead I picture an animated super-hero version of Kim Kardashian, in a pair of stiletto heals, fighting off the “bad guy”. It just didn’t work.
Maybe I am being too hard on these reporters. I guess over describing something may be better than using no description at all. I just think that these people crossed the fine line between well written, and over-the-top.
You are right on in this piece. That sentence you quote makes me want to vomit! it's bad writing. the worse kind of cliched, hyper active reporting. the new york post is know of it's tabloid writing style. Your wise to notice it. Do NOT emulate. :) Be descriptive but with some class!
ReplyDelete