Here's a look at the front page of today's Hindustan Times, Delhi edition.
Once again, we start with the lead (Nuke Bill passage on course). And once again, we find mistakes in the intro itself:
The international relations committee of the US House of Representatives began considering a bill seeking an exemptions for India from the discriminatory nuclear regime that presently existing under US law. Early indications, based on votes on amendments to the bill, indicated that of the 45 committee members present, at least 30 were in favour of the deal, 10 were opposed and the remainder were in the balance.
Firstly, good subs avoid indiscriminate use of presently. Even if one were to disregard the Americanism, meaning "at the time of speaking/writing", the usage is incorrect. If at all, presently must refer to something actually happenning at the time of speaking/writing. The other — traditional and proper — usage pertains to describing something which happened after a short time. E.g.: Presently, the door opened and the editor walked into the newsroom. Presently is best avoided in such circumstances (of the story); at present or currently are better choices.
You can argue with me over this, but what you can't turn a blind eye to is the fault in the construction of the first sentence. What you read as "the discriminatory nuclear regime that presently existing under US law" should have been either "the discriminatory nuclear regime that exists under US law" or "the discriminatory nuclear regime presently existing under US law" (disregarding the Americanism) or "the discriminatory nuclear regime existing under US law".
The second sentence is just as bad. The copy tells us "at least 30" were in favour of the deal. Err, would that mean 31? Maybe 34? Since 45 members were present and the results were known to all, the desk would have done us a favour in being accurate. Such mistakes are common in the media these days — more so on television. You can get away without being accurate. Just the way you report about "at least 2,000" people being killed in a quake. When the numbers in question are big, "at least" is the correct way to refer to the number. But not so here.
Coming back to the intro. So, 10 were opposed to the deal. HT is accurate on this one. So we have a head count of "at least" 40 (i.e. at least 30 + 10). Well, that number could be 41 or 42 or... Anyway, forget it. The remainder, we are told, "were in the balance". I am not sure what that means. If you do, please let me know.
The fact that HT does not follow a consistent style is evident with the Bill in the headline and bill in the main body. Maybe Bill was written like this in the header to add emphasis. Thank heavens the header wasn't "Nuke BILL passage on course". HT needs to put on its thinking Cap.
I had yesterday written about get being an extremely adaptable word. The subs of HT are extremely adept at adapting the word to the needs of the copy whenever they can't think of a better one. See the first sentence of the second para:
Well, you don't get a majority — no one gives you one. In this case, either secure or win a majority — to mention two alternatives — would have been better. Avoid get when you can. There are more getisms on the front page. I will point those out as I write along.
Here's something not many Indian readers would understand:
Ranking Democrat, Tom Lantos, called it "defining moment in our relationship with India."
Pray,what is a "Ranking Democrat"? An elaboration is necessary. Not everyone, unlike the HT subs, have been raised in the US of A.
And, Lantos would have called it a defining moment. Dropping the indefinite article was not a very bright idea.
Yesterday, I had pointed out the juvenile use of double hyphens to indicate an em dash (—). Today's lead makes the use of (just) hyphens to indicate a break in a sentence:
After the debate, a series of amendments designed to wreck the bill - demanding, among other things, that India sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and cap its fissile material production - were voted on by the committee.
The last para:
Write broadbase like this, and not broad base.
Let's move leftwards to the top single column (Auction of MIG flats: Prices to skyrocket). The intro is atrocious:
Are you pinching and saving money for that MIG flat you are keen on and awaiting the draw of lots by DDA? That flat may not fit into a middle-class budget as the Centre plans to auction it.
Pinching money means to steal it from someone. Surely, the HT desk did not mean to imply that you have been stealing money in order to buy an MIG flat?
The second sentence of the intro is convoluted, but I will let it pass. We are not looking at sentence constructions unless those are real bad and drastically alter the meaning.
The second para makes the same mistake of dropping an article:
The Union Urban Development Ministry on Monday said flats in MIG and HIG categories would be disposed of only through auction.
It should have been either "through an auction" or "through auctions" depending on the number of auctions the DDA plans to hold.
Prepositions:
A two-bedroom flat in the MIG category earlier priced at Rs 12-18 lakh will go for the highest bidder.
No, it won't. It will go to the highest bidder.
Downwards to the monsoon story (Monsoon 24 hours away). It is too small a copy to have too many errors. The adjacent single column (India snubs apology for Rajiv killing) has some, but I will dwell on one sentence:
The LTTE is increasingly isolated, and it is deprived funds from expatriate sources.
You don't deprive anyone the way you kill someone. You deprive someone of something. So the clause should have been "it is deprived of funds from expatriate sources".
I loved the anchor (Don't grease their palms — use RTI). It has as many four getisms. The HT desk can't get over its get fetish.
- When a sewer line in Hauz Khas got choked, resident Madhuri Bhaskar complained to the Delhi Jal Board — but to little avail.
- The RTI Act can work wonders when there is a delay in getting work done — be it the issue of passport, driving licence or a telephone connection, or getting a faulty water meter changed.
- If you have filed documents and completed formalities and are still facing problems in getting a passport, voter ID card, licences and certificates, or in rectifying errors in electricity and telephone bills, or in filing an FIR, you can visit these centres, draft the RTI application and deposit the fee.
The second one has two in the same sentence. The third example can be accepted in extreme circumstances. Using get indiscriminately is a lazy way of getting around a copy. Get is best left to phrasal verbs or idiomatic phrases, like get around.
I did not follow this sentence:
Bribery can be confined to the dustbin in corridors of power and dingy offices.
Either the reporter thought it out in his non-English mother tongue and wrote it out in English, or thought it out at a pace faster than at which he could write.
I have a style query about this one:
Starting July 1, a nationwide campaign against bribery — “Drive Against Bribery with Right to Information” — is being launched by the Hindustan Times along with other media houses and NGOs.
HT dropped its the prefix some time back. Good newspapers worldwide follow different policies over use of the definite article when it comes to naming newspapers in copies.
Usually, if the name of the newspaper itself starts with the, the standard style is to fully italicise its own title, but leave out the from the italics bracket in case of others. Newspapers without the in their title uniformly follow the second practice. So, the Times of India can call itself The Times of India, but refer to the Indian Express like this. There are others who don't italicise newspaper titles.
[This blog's style: the title is italicised without the. Abbreviations are not.]
So, the the should have been dropped.
I have not been referring to sentence constructions, but I have to do so when a faulty one changes the meaning altogether. The last sentence/para of the anchor, for instance:
HT will bring you news you can use at various stages of the campaign.
Read carefully. It implies that HT will bring you news that you (you, yourself) can use at various stages of (your) campaign. What the reporter probably meant was that HT will keep bringing you news that you can use, and this it would do at varous stages of its campaign. Callously written, I would say. Readers are intelligent; they will understand what we want to say, no matter what we write.
Enough.
