When I was a kid in the '60s and started reading the newspaper, there was a certain thread that was present in each news report. You might have heard of this little ditty: Who. What. When. Where. How. And nary a "Why" to be found outside of the editorial pages or the "features" section.
But these days, "journalists" want us to ooh and ahh over their skill with the English language, how they can shape a story, drawing the reader into an unfamiliar world that they would never have seen without reading this "news article."
Nevermind the fact that the only place that world exists is in the mind of the "reporter."
Oh, and then there's my favorite, frequently spied on Page A1 of The Washington Post, all too often under the byline of so-called "journalist" Dana Milbank: the "Analysis."
The reality is that the "analysis" is merely the "journalist's" vehicle for telling the reader what to think. 'Cause Lord knows, those of us in the unwashed masses can't think for ourselves.
And in only a minor digression, during my two recent trips back to Texas, I noticed a noteworthy difference between Texas newspapers and those in many other locales. When The Brownwood Bulletin refers to people as "Mr. Jones" or "Mrs. Smith" or even an occasional "Ms. Thompson" (instead of the proper term, "Miss Thompson"), it's not too surprising. Brownwood is a small town of about 20,000 souls in the geographical heart of Texas, so that kind of arcane throwback to the middle of the 20th century is to be expected.
But when I see the same convention in The Dallas Morning News, we know that it's not just limited to the small towns, but is applicable to a broader geographical area. It just seems respectful, and easy to do. It's seems to me that it's a shame that such a simple, respectful practice can't be followed outside of God's Country.
But back to the original point of this post, it just seems to me that the bulk of "journalists" these days are operating under a paradigm that's vastly different from the journalism of my youth.
