I don't hate TOI... They're all bad for all I care

Someone’s written to me:

Dear Maharishi ValmikiYou're doing some great work, ‘exposing’ the TOI. But what about the other mainline English dailies. Why are they being ignored when they too are indulging in equally crappy journalism?

The comment is unsigned. So I presume it’s from a TOI journo who is pleased with me but is hurt that I’ve targeted mostly her (his?) paper.

For all you who believe I hate TOI, let me tell you I don't. I don't hate anyone: newspaper or television channel. It's just my job (well, I decided that) to expose crappy journalism no matter where it sits.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Crappy is as crappy gets.”

If it's any consolation to my anonymous praise mailer from TOI, The Indian Express is shittier than his/her rag. Yes, that's right. Express is the worse of the two.

Look at this morning's (April 27) main story by Ritu Sarin, who's covered the CBI since the time of my grandaunt.

Ritu often scoops decent stuff as she does this time, too. The story is:
CBI will press murder charges on five Indian Army officers who allegedly killed as many innocent people and falsely claimed they were terrorists.

Ritu’s write-up, alas, is too confusing. As always, she violates several basic principles of news writing. Her story –
(1) Has way too long sentences that make her lose focus
(2) Presumes foreknowledge among readers
(3) Rides on clichés (Say no to “worn-out clichés” because, well, that’s a cliché.)
(4) Feels dry and mechanical
(5) Isn’t kept simple… coz she is stupid

Ritu should read the link to the Northern Star writing tips that I pasted in an earlier post. (No, I’m not on the NS payroll. I found their site in random Internet search.) The NSWT (go figure) say a journalist should ask himself/herself before writing a story –

What is the news here? Why should my readers care? What does this mean to them?

Now read Ritu’s badly told story:

CBI to book 5 Army officers for killing 5 Kashmiris in cold blood
RITU SARIN
NEW DELHI, APRIL 26
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is set to chargesheet five Army officers, including a Brigadier, for the alleged abduction and murder of five unarmed, innocent Kashmiris in the infamous Pathribal "encounter" in Anantnag in March 2000. (37 words)
The agency's indictment is sweeping: from Army officers faking witness statements and "fabricating evidence" to passing off the premeditated killings as a "stage-managed encounter"; from the hasty burial of the bodies to evidence that the weapons the Army said it used were not used at all. (46 words)
The chargesheet, to be filed in the next few days in a Jammu and Kashmir court, names Brigadier Ajay Saxena, Lt Col Brijendra Pratap Singh, Major Sourabh Sharma, Major Amit Saxena and Subedar I Khan. (35 words)
The case hit international headlines, coming as it did four days after the Chittisinghpora massacre in which 35 Sikh villagers were lined up and killed, allegedly by militants. The fact that US President Bill Clinton was in India at that time amplified the significance of the event.
The five persons killed in Pathribal on March 24, 2000, were made out to be foreign militants behind the Chittisinghpora massacre. When local residents took out a protest march complaining these were men gone missing from nearby villages and killed in cold blood, they were fired upon near Brakpora. Ten more persons were killed.
Confirming the CBI's decision, Director Vijay Shankar told The Indian Express: "The Army has performed an exceptional role in Jammu and Kashmir. However, there are one or two encounters where their role has been severely criticized. The Anantnag encounter is one such case which can be called an aberration and it was necessary for the CBI to clear the good name of the Army and expose persons responsible for the fake encounter.''
The decision to chargesheet the Army officers (who were then attached to the Rashtriya Rifles) was delayed because former Director U S Mishra could not take a final decision given the division in the agency: while investigators were all for prosecution, some on its legal panel were not.
Shankar is said to have finally ruled that there was no requirement for the agency to seek sanction in the case and that a direct chargesheet was in order.
The Farooq Abdullah Government had constituted more than one inquiry into the Pathribal killings and faced severe flak when it was discovered that DNA samples had been fudged. Later, in July 2002, fresh DNA reports were tabled in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.

Before I shred Ritu’s copy, let me puncture all you Indian journalists: 'Chargesheet' is not an English word. Indian journalists have created it quite like preponement, which isn’t a word either. I recommend best is to write it as two words: charge sheet = the sheet containing the charges, where ‘sheet’ is the subject noun and ‘charge’ its qualifier. But why not just say 'charges'?)

Of course, Ritu is guilty of the usual presumptions: “the infamous Pathribal ‘encounter’ in Anantnag in March 2000”, “the Chittisinghpora massacre”, “…need for the agency to seek sanction”, “the Farooq Abdullah Government”.

Of course, the clichés are way too many –
Is set to
In the infamous
Indictment is sweeping
Passing off
Hit international headlines
Coming as it did
Were made out to be
Took out a protest march
Gone missing
Killed in cold blood (that’s a favourite with Indian journalists)
Were fired upon
Were all for…
Is said to have
Finally ruled that
Was in order
Constituted more than one…
Faced severe flak (flak is another favourite, and it's mostly severe)
Had been fudged
Reports were tabled

Big words are plenty, too. They could easily be changed as –
Indictment = charge
Fabricating = making up
Premeditated = planned
Stage-managed = set up
Aberration = rare lapse

Poor construction is this story’s biggest problem. Ritu is a good reporter but a bad writer. She doesn’t know English. She doesn’t know news writing as the various pieces of information are all in the wrong order.
Sadly, that’s the story with 94.7% Indian journalists, reporters or subs.

Before I carry on, a word about quotes. NSWT say, “The best quotes are short and bright. They reveal insights or secrets. They prove points.” Remember: never let bureaucrats write your quote. Ritu does just that:

Confirming the CBI's decision, Director Vijay Shankar told The Indian Express: "The Army has performed an exceptional role in Jammu and Kashmir. However, there are one or two encounters where their role has been severely criticized. The Anantnag encounter is one such case which can be called an aberration and it was necessary for the CBI to clear the good name of the Army and expose persons responsible for the fake encounter.''

Let me rewrite her entire story. But first, read what the NSWT say about –

Qualities of Effective Leads

Focus. Make a specific promise to the reader, and then deliver.
Context. Involve the reader. Show clear, immediate significance. Answer the question, “Why should I read this story?”
Form. Implies a design, a plan, a structure, a pattern that will help the reader understand the meaning.

MY REWRITE --

Murder charge on 5 Army officers for killing innocents
RITU SARIN

NEW DELHI, APRIL 26
It’s a shame for the Indian Army. Five of its officers are being charged with murder for allegedly killing as many innocents and falsely claiming they were terrorists.

The accused officers include a brigadier, which is the Army’s fourth highest rank.
The killings occurred five years ago in Kashmir, in a small village 55 km south of Srinagar. The Army had then claimed the dead were terrorists killed in a gun battle with its soldiers on patrol.

Today, the Army declined comment to The Indian Express.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which probed the incident, says it will “soon” file the murder charges against the Army officers in a lower court in the state.
The CBI says the accused officers forged evidence and witness accounts, and quickly buried the dead men’s bodies to hide the truth. It says these officers planted weapons later found on the dead men to claim the “terrorists” had fired from them.
“The Army has played an exceptional role in Kashmir (in fighting terrorism),” CBI director Vijay Shankar told The Indian Express. “That is why the CBI must expose those responsible for the fake encounter and clear the Army’s name.”
The five officers accused of murder are: Brigadier Ajay Saxena, Lt. Col. Brijendra Pratap Singh, Major Sourabh Sharma, Major Amit Saxena and Subedar I. Khan. At the time of the incident, these officers were attached with the paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles.
The killings occurred on March 24, 2000 in village Pathribal. The village is located in the state’s Anantnag district, which is among those areas that terrorism rocked for 15 years.
This “encounter” made news globally as the Army claimed the dead had led a massacre of 35 Sikhs in another village just four days earlier, on March 20.
That massacre had especially embarrassed the Indian government since then U.S. president Bill Clinton was in New Delhi the same day on a much-hyped visit.
Almost immediately the local people had accused the Army of lying and claimed that the soldiers had killed not terrorists but innocent men. Angry citizens had filled the streets, prompting security forces to fire at them. That firing had killed 10 more.
Earlier, the opinion within CBI was divided on whether or not to press with the prosecution. Some of its legal experts said the agency should seek the government’s ok for the prosecution because the case involved Army officers.
But Shankar overruled this view soon after taking charge as agency chief four months ago.