News-Record.com

That's strike two on the invasion of editorializing and bias in your TRC coverage. Are you starting to see what others see- or at least understand why they complain? It's not just TRC coverage either.

That's strike one on a different batter, Samuel. :)

Seriously, I've always understood it. (I think you can make the case that the word finally is, in fact, accurate, given the council's reluctance to tackle the report.)

All that said, I'm just not sure what editorial position the word "finally" represents. It can be taken several ways.

Cathy Frail: "(In fact, the story credits Signe Waller, widow of a slain protester and former CWP leader, for "finally talking about the report.") It's hard to read the story without thinking exactly what the headline writer did."

Waller doesn't say "finally" at all. She credits the Council for talking about the report, no correct time frame stated or implied. I read the story and don't think at all what the headline writer did, and it wasn't hard at all.

John, are you really, really, truly unsure what editorial position "finally" takes? (Your mock-puzzlement doesn't convince me.) Maybe it can be "taken several ways." But so can aspirin. One way is that you can grind it up, mix it with castor oil, and spread it in a fine paste on your eyelids. But almost everyone takes it orally with a sip of water.

Similarly, almost everyone would take this headline to mean, "What took you so long, bozos?" It flows naturally from the breathless quality of the prose--This (this!!) from the same group that declined to endorse the commission fifteen years ago!!--when arguably the council's time frame emerged from a responsible decision to wait until the report was published before endorsing the project or not. Apparently your headline writer wishes they had done something else.

Perhaps you will recognize the editorializing in this (hypothetical) headline:

NEWS AND RECORD STILL PEPPERING THE FRONT PAGE WITH INCREASINGLY UNNEWSWORTHY T&R FILLER

OK, that's too easy, so let's drop the last part: "N&R STILL COVERING T&R." The "still" editorializes that this story is a dead horse beating beaten, apparently in perpetuity. It implies a "proper" time frame that apparently you disagree with. It suggests that your time would be better spent elsewhere. It's also literally and factually true. You are still (STILL!) covering every occasion on which two or more are gathered in the name of truth and reconciliation.

Your mock headline could also mean that the newspaper continues to write about an issue of importance and significance. And that's my point. It can be interpreted different ways based on your perspective.

What I meant by the council headline is that yes, the council finally took up the report -- the bozos is your editorial addendum, not ours -- but what's the "editorial position?" That it's a great thing the council is considering it or a bad thing? Did the council discuss the right thing or the wrong thing? The word "finally" conveys an attitude -- I watched the meeting in which they talked about talking about the report; they were clearly reluctant -- but if there is an "editorial" position in it, it's insignificant. So the council dragged its feet in talking about the report? OK, the mayor thinks that's a big deal. I don't.

That's why Cathy says that we could have made the point without the word, and she's right. I just don't think the headline itself is wrong.

The editorial position is pretty clearly that the council is doing a good thing by finally "joining the dialogue," which they should have done sooner. Like the mayor, I can't see any other way to read it.

JR: "The word "finally" conveys an attitude -- I watched the meeting in which they talked about talking about the report; they were clearly reluctant -- but if there is an "editorial" position in it, it's insignificant. So the council dragged its feet in talking about the report? OK, the mayor thinks that's a big deal. I don't."

Which attitude is "finally" conveying? The council's (that they didn't really want to talk about it) or yours (that the "council dragged its feet")? I'd say the latter, but I can see your point. In any event, your sense of the council's reluctance at this meeting is pretty firmly suppressed in the story, which turns on a "breath of fresh air," once-was-blind-now-can-see, "can ya believe it?" structure to suggest a departure from past practices. Sure, the council is saying the same things (buried late in the story), but the main story is NOW THEY'RE TALKING, FINALLY.

The headline, the article, and your comments all suggest that the council SHOULD have talked about it sooner, and that not doing so constitutes foot-dragging. That you so effortlessly generate the foot-dragging analogy in declaring it not a big deal simply reproduces the bias already operative in "finally"--namely, that the delay is unjustified. That's a value judgment best left to the editorial page, IMO.

If you wanted a neutral version of my headline, it would be "N&R Continues to Cover T&R." That eliminates the clear implication of "Still." The pro-coverage version would be "N&R Perseveres in Covering N&R." They're all "accurate," but your implication is that language isn't really that important, since interpretation is purely subjective. Probably you are a literary deconstructionist, no?

Next, you'll be saying that "foot-dragging" could also be interpreted to mean a thoughtful delay. :)