Chad, Described

I believe the descriptive technique is the most important technique in article writing. The tangible nature of the technique allows the reader to envision things as if he is actually there.

Without description, the reader is left blank, unable to fully understand the subject being discussed. When reading something, there is no way to visualize the setting or the subject, unless the reader is specifically told.

Description helps to put subjects in action, keeping the reader involved in the story. Without that involvement, the reader would move on to something else. And that's not what is wanted.

The feature article I've chosen, A Learned Man Searches for Relevance While Languishing in a Chadian Camp, uses plenty of description.

For an American who only knows modern civilization, it would be impossible to envision the impoverished conditions millions of people around the world face without description.

Here is a perfect example of the technique:

Fighting between the government, rebels and various militias plaguing
eastern Chad has taken place fairly far from this isolated maze of huts
and twig fences, two hours from any sizable town.

Being able to visualize the disorderliness and solitariness of the community instills in the reader the amount of hardship these people live with. It would be impossible to fully recognize the scale of the situation without the description.

Another example is:

A flock of kids waved frantically, like marooned residents of a remote
island, then went back to gathering firewood, hauling water or playing, building
facsimiles of their lost homes out of wet sand. It was food distribution day,
and women carried huge sacks of flour and beans from the backs of trucks. A few
Chadian soldiers were asleep at their post.

This entire paragraph reveals the desperation of the people, something impossible to comprehend without the use of adjectives and analogies.

In a TV generation, Americans have grown accustomed to seeing everything they are being told about. If suddenly forced to read without being able to "see" what is going on, that's a reader that won't be coming back for more anytime soon.

And as a writer, it's a useless proposition to expend effort putting our thoughts and insights on paper if nobody is going to read it.

The murder of Tupac Shakur 14 years ago remains unsolved to this day. This does not mean that journalists and investigators have not been trying to unravel the mystery that has shrouded the violent loss of one of rap music's pioneers.

One such reporter, Chuck Phillips of the Los Angeles Times, was presented with alledged FBI documents accusing two men of their involvement in Shakur's murder. It was later discovered by The Smoking Gun that the documents were forged by a convicted con man who has a history of fabricating stories that make him appear to be very influential in the rap music industry. Phillips and his supervisor at the LA Times, Marc Duvoisin, failed to appropriately verify the authenticity of the documents before publishing the story on the newspaper's website on March 17, 2008.

Phillips and Duvoisin have subsequently retracted their story and apologized for writing accusatory statements based on falsified information. The pair overlooked numerous inaccuracies, such as misspellings and uncommon acronyms, in the documents which should have triggered their skepticism. Upon realizing the magnitude of his error, Phillips said, "In relying on documents that I now believe were fake, I failed to do my job." Additionally, Duvoisin said, "We should not have let ourselves be fooled. That we were is as much my fault as Chuck's. I deeply regret that we let our readers down."

Clearly this entire situation should never have materialized. In news organizations, documents, especially those of a serious nature, are almost always questioned by several levels of authority. This did not happen in this particular case, though it certainly should have considering it implicates individuals in a murder plot. There were several steps that were never taken such as the very obvious one of confirming the document's authenticity with the FBI.

The result is the loss of credibility for a reporter who won the esteemed Pulitzer Prize less than a decade ago. It certainly seems worthwhile to do the little extra work that ensures your place among the elite in your field. I would imagine both Phillips and Duvoisin now agree.

Did You Hear About...

Advances in technology over the past century have radically changed everyday life. Everyday life is influenced by the world around us. We learn about the world around us thanks to the efforts of journalists. And journalism, like nearly every other facet of life, has seen a great deal of change as technological advances have penetrated the field over the years.

Newspapers were THE source of news for decades, if not longer. "Read all about it" could be heard every morning on bustling city streets. Soon radios put a voice to the written words and were able to provide live updates on news events. Television later added pictures to breaking news stories. And then...

Then came the internet.

Suddenly people were able to choose which news stories to follow - and to any extent desired. But therein lies a problem. The exponential increase in news coverage and analysis opened the doors for anyone with a bit of computer experience and an opinion to state their unedited and unsubstantiated views as if they are factual. Journalism has entered yet another crossroads.

Exactly where journalism is headed is a matter of opinion. Perhaps not coincidentally, this may be because much of today's "journalism" is exactly that -- a matter of opinion.

An informal study of journalism students headed by Gregory Favre, a faculty member at Poynter Institute (a journalism school,) brought forth a wide range of sentiments. The students' thoughts ran the gamut from optimism to pessimism to everything between. One underlying theme that consistently resonated through the room involved the change in journalism's credibility. And it's not for the better.

Newspapers, radio, and television abide by company (and federally mandated) rules and regulations. On the internet, anything - and anyone - is fair game.

Well designed websites connote plausibility. Whether or not the information is accurate is a whole other matter. Your ordinary web surfer looking for information on a subject knows no difference. It has become much too easy to be duped into believing something that has not happened the way it is told -- if it even happened at all.

So here we are, on the verge of entering a professional field that has been infiltrated by amateurs. These untrained neophytes have, to a degree, spoiled journalism for those who have made a career of honest reporting.

But journalism has survived change after change over the years, and this represents just one more hurdle to overcome. And maybe it will be resolved before long.

After all, as one Poynter Institute student said, "It can't be that bad, can it?"

Neck Protection - Your Life May Depend On It

When Florida Panthers' forward Richard Zednik skated toward his team's bench gasping for life, his carotid artery severed and leaving a ghastly trail of blood in his wake, the hockey world was suddenly transported back to the year 1989.

It was on March 22nd of that year when one of the most disturbing scenes in American sporting history occurred. I will warn you of the disturbing nature of the video that forever changed goaltender Clint Malarchuk's life. The ice skate of an opposing player accidentally sliced across Malarchuk's neck, piercing open his jugular vein in front of more than 15,000 spectators and witnessed live on television.

Malarchuk was immediately rescued off the ice and sped to the hospital, where he would receive over 300 stitches to seal the wound. The aftermath of the incident, which caused two spectators to suffer heart attacks and left players vomiting on the ice from the sight, raised new concerns about neck protection for goaltenders. Fortunately, like Zednik, Malarchuk survived.

As a 10 year old hockey goalie, I was very personally affected by this incident. I was actually in Buffalo, the city Malarchuk played in at the time of the injury, for a hockey tournament about a week after the incident. I went to the hotel restaurant with my dad, and who did we see sitting there eating breakfast with his wife? Clint Malarchuk, complete with a huge gauze pad wrapped around his neck.

From that day on, I wore a protective neck collar along with a flap that hung down from my facemask and covered my throat. I was not the only goaltender to add such protection.

Here we are, some 19 years later, and the debate has refueled. In many youth hockey leagues, no neck protection is required and only goaltenders are even recommended to wear it (surely a result of the earlier Malarchuk incident.) But now that a skater, not a goaltender, has fallen victim to this gruesome injury, will we see the protection become mandated for all hockey players, at least on the youth level?

Probably not.

Hockey is a sport whose goaltenders didn't even wear masks as recently as 1974. Players were not required to wear helmets until the 1990s, and many wear no face protection whatsoever to this day. There have been serious eye injuries, skates slicing apart faces, thousands of broken noses and lost teeth, and yet no protection is required.

But as painful and disfiguring as these injuries can be, perhaps there is nothing more frightening than watching a neck spurt pints and pints of blood. One time can be referred to as just that: "a one time occurrence." But seeing it happen again is a trend in the wrong direction.

School Blog

This blog is for school. The content may or may not mirror what has been posted on my website at www.inahead.com in which I discuss the Washington Capitals and the National Hockey League.