Literary Legs

Small Error Leads to Big Difference in Meaning

Sometimes a small error in grammar can make a big difference in the meaning of a sentence, and today's AP story about former 100m record holder Tim Montgomery is a perfect example.  Montgomery's record was wiped from the books after he was implicated in the BALCO scandal and had admitted doping.  He is serving time now for bank fraud and drug dealing.  Montgomery also had a relationship with fellow disgraced sprinter Marion Jones.

Both espn.com and si.com have Montgomery's story from the AP wire.  Here's a sentence from ESPN's version:

A short time after they got together, Montgomery set the world record in the 100 in Paris, running 9.78 seconds -- one hundredth of a second faster than Greene's previous record, which has been wiped from the books.

And here is the same sentence from Sport Illustrated's version:

A short time after they got together, Montgomery set the world record in the 100 in Paris, running 9.78 seconds -- one hundredth of a second faster than Greene's previous record but now wiped from the books.

Obviously, a huge difference in meaning here, and in fact a factual error on ESPN's part.  Their version means, with the non-restrictive clause at the end, that Greene's previous record was wiped from the books.  That is not true, and it also makes Greene look bad by implying that his record was erased because of steroid use.

Sports Illustrated's version is the right one.  Montgomery's record, not Greene's, was wiped from the books.

A Disinterested Account of an Execution

My post two days ago on subtle bias in a death penalty article elicited considerable dialogue.  The post was not intended to be--as some perceived it--an attack on left-wing media bias.  What I tried to show was that unintended bias is almost impossible to overcome, despite our best intentions.  For example, saying that someone was "electrocuted" is a much more graphic way of saying someone was "put to death."  Perhaps a writer may intend no difference in meaning, but to me there is a difference in how these two terms are taken.

Similarly, writers use angle of vision. They are in complete control of what the reader sees--and does not see.  And this absolutely impacts the reader's perception of an event.  For example, had White simply written that "Elliott was strapped to the chair, the switch was thrown, and five minutes later he was dead," such a sanitized version probably would not have moved many people.  However, had he gone into greater detail about Elliott's convulsions as the current flowed through his body, the bodily fluids streaming from his mouth and skin, the smoke, and other sensory images, many people would have been repulsed by what they perceive as barbaric behavior.  This is angle of vision: same event, different versions.

Josh White, the author of the Washington Post article I discussed on Monday, wrote a follow up blog post, a first person account of Larry Elliott's execution.  White was one of the witnesses, and I think he does a fantastic job of describing an emotional experience with impressive disinterest.  This is what White wrote about the moment the current hit Elliott's body:

Another officer, concealed in a room adjacent to the death chamber, hit a button marked “execute” on a machine that was described as being about the size of a domestic clothes dryer.

It was clear when the electricity hit Elliott, as his body jerked bolt upright in the chair and his hands appeared to tightly grip the oak arms. A large blister formed on the inside of his right knee, just above the electrical contact. Smoke rose from both his leg and his head. Spit bubbles formed below the left side of his face mask, near where the corner of his mouth would have been.

This is a strong piece of writing about the moment a man dies (or is killed, depending on your view, right?).  There is not much here that gives away White's position.  Remember: White has witnessed a pretty graphic death.  It would be easy to descend into hyperbole, but he writes just the facts.

If you teach argumentative writing, a good classroom exercise would be to take a passage (like the one above) and make it more persuasive by adding details to alter the angle of vision.  If you have a particularly morbid curiosity, plenty of websites can explain just what happens to the body when the "execute" button is pushed. 

Subtle Bias in a Death Penalty Article?

Few issues are as difficult to write about from an unbiased perspective as capital punishment.  The debate invokes a lot of passion when a person's life hangs in the balance. (See here for my recent post on print media's varying reactions to Manson family member Susan Atkins' death.)

Reporters who cover executions no doubt are susceptible to the emotions that accompany seeing someone die. Still, they must cover these events in an impartial fashion.  And try as they might, sometimes we can still see elements of subtle bias in their reporting.  The biased language is probably not intentional.  From an argumentative or legal writing perspective, performing a close reading of a text like this can help uncover subtle or hidden biases in your opponent.

Last week in Virginia, Larry Elliott was executed for the murder of a couple in 2001.  Elliott, a former Army counterintelligence officer, denied that he was the killer.  A close reading of the Washington Post's coverage of his execution can be an instructive lesson in hidden, and quite possibly unintended, bias.  I have no idea if the author of the piece, Josh White, supports the death penalty (though White said in a blog post, "Let me say upfront that I do not have strong views on the death penalty in general."  I find this hard to believe).

First, let's look at the narrative structure. We open with a two paragraph lede, the five W's of the actual execution.  The third paragraph, however, paints a somewhat sympathetic picture: a confused Elliott, hardly defiant, strapped into the chair: "Instead of making an oral statement, Elliott said he didn't know how much time he had to speak, so he gave a written statement to his attorneys." 

The next three paragraphs detail the statement in which he professes his innocence.  In this statement, Elliott says, "In this great country, we should not arrest and convict innocent people of any crime, let alone capital murder, nor should we kill innocent people as the Commonwealth of Virginia has done today." So far, then, this is what we have: a confused man not able to comprehend why he is being executed.