Just plain dowdy
Can someone please tell Maureen Dowd that it's hard to take an argument seriously when it's written primarily in one-sentence 'paragraphs?' This woman would be an embarassment to a paper that still had a sense of shame.
There's one of two possibilities here. Either a) the New York Times has given up all hope of excellence in editing (maybe they're too busy looking for the next Jayson Blair to check for style?), or b) she somehow conned whoever glanced at her work into thinking that it wasn't really an op-ed, but an extended piece of free verse.
Chickadee, if your writing is the worst Karl Rove has to be nervous about, he's sleeping soundly at night. How does this woman keep her job?
Comments
Not that I want to be defending the journalism-ethically challenge Ms. Dowd, but this may well be the fault of the Times. When the Iowa City Press-Citizen got my op-ed on Justice Moore, they broke apart some of the paragraphs with explanation that too many long paragraphs are anathema to readers.
Of course, I expect that the Times considers itself miles ahead of the Press-Citizen. Perhaps yet another example of delusion.
guklohyPosted by: Tung Yin | August 31, 2003 02:51 PM