Inaccurate Number in News Graphic

Numbers are confusing for the average reader. They want a simple and easily understandable version of the numbers presented in the story.

Above is a graphic from the Chicago Tribune. The title of the graphic reads "$9.8 billion of bond money spend since 2000." However, when you add up the individual parts of the bond money, they total to $9.9 billion.

Numbers that don't add to what the reporter is reporting are troublesome for readers. Which number is trustworthy? Did the reporter do their job correctly? How much is our government actually spending?

Although a small error in addition, this miscalculation can leave readers second guessing the entire piece.

The full article for this story can be on the front page and Page 16 in the Nov. 3 issue of the Chicago Tribune.

Inaccurate Word Choice

It's always important to use the right word. Using the wrong word can often paint pictures of people that aren't entirely true.

In the example above, we see a suspect identified as a bandit. According to Merriam Webster's, a bandit is a criminal who attacks and steals from travelers and who is often a member of a group of criminals. 

The story states that the suspect, Jeffery A. Santucci, was charged with armed robbery, theft and unlawful use of a weapon while robbing a gas station in the town of Frankfort. 

It is incorrect to call Santucci a bandit. First, he did not steal from a group of travelers; a gas station is a fixed established beside a road that sells gasoline, oil and other products. Second, Santucci did not attack the gas station attendants. According to the story, he held the attendants at gun point but did not physically harm them in any way. Finally, we do not know that Santucci acted on behalf of a larger group of criminals. We only know that he acted alone. 

Calling Santucci a bandit paints an inaccurate picture of the crime. The reporter should change the use of bandit in their story to robber in order to match the crime Santucci committed in reality.

The full article for this story can be found on Page 9 in the Nov. 22 issue of Joliet's Herald News.

Dangling Modifier

Modifiers enhance nouns, adjectives and verbs, often adding meaning and thoughtful description to sentences. However, when used incorrectly, modifiers can convolute the meaning of sentences.

In the example above, the phrase destroying a corn crib and causing heavy damage to his house does not modify anything in the sentence. The only word it could modify in the sentence is the subject, farm. This doesn't make much sense though. How could a farm destroy its own corn crib and damage the owner's home? What was its motive for that matter?

The implied subject of the sentence is the tornado that damaged the town of Wilton Center. The sentence should be rewritten as follows: Hansen's farm was hit by the tornado, which destroyed a corn crib and caused damage to his home. Replacing His with Hansen clarifies whose farm the sentence is talking about. Adding the phrase by the tornado clarifies that the tornado caused the damaged, not Hansen's farm.

The full article for this story can be found on Page 3 in the Nov. 22 issue of Joliet's Herald News.

Dead Construction

Using as little space as necessary on the news page is essential. Not only does it allow room for more stories and advertisements to be published, but it ensures that journalists write in a concise and straightforward manner.

It's important to write sentences that have strong verbs and strong subjects. Dead constructions take these components away, making sentences longer than they need to be and taking up valuable space on the page.

Eliminating dead constructions eliminates useless clutter on the page while adding strength to sentences. Although dead constructions are hard to catch, they often begin with forms of it is and there is.  By eliminating these phrases, the power of the sentence can be switched back to the main verb of the sentence instead of the linking verb.

In the example above, a dead construction is used to start the sentence. There were should be removed from the sentence. Be removing this phrase, the power of the sentence shifts to the main verb picked. The sentence should be rewritten as follows: Ten semi-finalists picked public voting, and the public cast nearly 22,000 votes to get down to four finalists. 

The full article for this story can by found on Page 4 of the Nov. 29 issue of Joliet's Herald News.

Lack of Editing

Reporters make mistakes. Whether it's a misspelled word or a wrong last name, editors are there to catch those pesky blunders.

In the example above, we see a simple typo that should have been caught. This can be fixed by adding the letter n to the end of the word know to make it the word known, putting it in the correct verb form.

The full article for this story can be found on Page 7 of the Nov. 25 issue of Joliet's Herald News.

Lack of Parallelism

Subject-verb and antecedent agreement are important parts of effective writing. Harmony and grammatical agreement allow readers to move through a story without running into awkward phrasings. This type of agreement in sentence structure is called parallelism. 

In the example above, we see a sentence without parallel structure. The verbs (use, finds and keep) do not match forms and make for an awkward read. The way the sentence is written now also takes away the meaning of the sentence. 

In order to make the verb forms match and the sentence readily understood, it should read: "Unlike typical raffles, players use a portable touch screen, choose a number, find out if they have won instantly and decide if they would like to keep playing." 

The full article for this story can be found on Page 7 of the Nov. 24 issue of Joliet's Herald News.

Wrong Pronoun

Pronouns are problematic. One way to know when to use a pronoun correctly is to know the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.

A restrictive clause is one that is essential to the meaning of a sentence; however, a nonrestrictive clause is not essential to the full meaning of a sentence.

In the above example, which is used incorrectly. The phrase suffered severe structural damage is integral to the meaning of the sentence and is part of a restrictive clause. Without this phrase, the reader is left unsure why it is so important that the storm didn't occur an hour earlier.

The correct version of this sentence should read: Had the storm struck an hour earlier, there would have been 200 people in the sanctuary that suffered severe structural damage. The use of that in this sentence instead of which lets readers know if the storm had occurred an hour earlier, 200 people would have been injured because the sanctuary was severely damaged.

The full article for this story can be found in the Nov. 25 issue of Joliet's Herald News.