By MERVIN BLOCK
July 7, 2008

CNN began its newscast at 10 p.m., June 8, with a jolt:

“Tonight, an attack on Iran, quote, “Unavoidable.” Words from an Israeli cabinet official that are setting off a firestorm of concern, reaction and this: Tonight, gas has hit the four-dollar mark. That is the new national average.”

When listeners heard the first five words, they might well have thought an attack was under way. That’s because the opening sentence fragment violated a basic rule of broadcast newswriting: attribution precedes assertion. As for the firestorm, keep it away from gasoline. As for the cost, this would be better: “The new national average for a gallon of gas has hit four dollars.”

After the anchor presented video clips of the program’s top stories, he resumed:

“And hello again, everybody. I’m Rick Sanchez. Tonight, politics, energy and the threat of war. An Israeli cabinet minister is saying tonight that an attack on Iran [by whom?] is, quote, ‘Unavoidable.’ “

The cabinet minister is saying tonight? No, he wasn’t. And it wasn’t news; it was olds. Two and a half days earlier (almost 60 hours), about 10:30 a.m., EDT, Friday, June 6, CNN itself carried the story of the threatened attack. A CNN reporter said:

“An Israeli official is quoted as saying an attack on Iran’s nuclear site [sic] looks, quote, ‘unavoidable.’” The reporter neglected to say who might do the attacking.

Reuters had already said. Five hours earlier, in a 374-word story from Jerusalem moved at 5:08 a.m., EDT, Reuters wrote, “An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks ‘unavoidable’ given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies said on Friday.”

That day, June 6, shortly after 3 p.m., a CNN correspondent reported that an Israeli official had said “a conflict with Iran is unavoidable.”

The threat of a conflict, as CNN put it, doesn’t pack the punch of the threatened attack on Iran. And conflict doesn’t necessarily mean armed conflict. Webster‘s New World College Dictionary says conflict “refers to a sharp disagreement or collision.”

That night, on CNN’s 10 o’clock newscast, a CNN senior political analyst remarked that Israel said war with Iran was inevitable. Again, no mention of the threatened attack. The threat was made by a deputy prime minister; should his threat be attributed to the government?

Two nights later, people listening to CNN’s 10 o’clock newscast of Sunday, June 8, were subjected to the time-twisting, either deliberate time-twisting or unintentional time-twisting—if there is such a thing.

Ten minutes after the anchor Rick Sanchez’s jarring opening, he acknowledged, perhaps inadvertently, that the threat about an attack on Iran wasn’t made that night. He said: “It’s an ominous threat by an Israeli official about attacking Iran…. [He] sent shockwaves through world markets the other day.” The other day. Hmm.

Time-twisters, wherever they work, should know that the facts may eventually come to light. Truth will out–sometimes.

© Mervin Block 2008

Mervin offers more writing tips at mervinblock.com. And still more in one of his books, Broadcast Newswriting: The RTNDA Reference Guide. His Writing Broadcast News—Shorter, Sharper, Stronger is temporarily unavailable.

By MERVIN BLOCK
July 7, 2008

CNN began its newscast at 10 p.m., June 8, with a jolt:

“Tonight, an attack on Iran, quote, “Unavoidable.” Words from an Israeli cabinet official that are setting off a firestorm of concern, reaction and this: Tonight, gas has hit the four-dollar mark. That is the new national average.”

When listeners heard the first five words, they might well have thought an attack was under way. That’s because the opening sentence fragment violated a basic rule of broadcast newswriting: attribution precedes assertion. As for the firestorm, keep it away from gasoline. As for the cost, this would be better: “The new national average for a gallon of gas has hit four dollars.”

After the anchor presented video clips of the program’s top stories, he resumed:

“And hello again, everybody. I’m Rick Sanchez. Tonight, politics, energy and the threat of war. An Israeli cabinet minister is saying tonight that an attack on Iran [by whom?] is, quote, ‘Unavoidable.’ “

The cabinet minister is saying tonight? No, he wasn’t. And it wasn’t news; it was olds. Two and a half days earlier (almost 60 hours), about 10:30 a.m., EDT, Friday, June 6, CNN itself carried the story of the threatened attack. A CNN reporter said:

“An Israeli official is quoted as saying an attack on Iran’s nuclear site [sic] looks, quote, ‘unavoidable.’” The reporter neglected to say who might do the attacking.

Reuters had already said. Five hours earlier, in a 374-word story from Jerusalem moved at 5:08 a.m., EDT, Reuters wrote, “An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks ‘unavoidable’ given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s deputies said on Friday.”

That day, June 6, shortly after 3 p.m., a CNN correspondent reported that an Israeli official had said “a conflict with Iran is unavoidable.”

The threat of a conflict, as CNN put it, doesn’t pack the punch of the threatened attack on Iran. And conflict doesn’t necessarily mean armed conflict. Webster‘s New World College Dictionary says conflict “refers to a sharp disagreement or collision.”

That night, on CNN’s 10 o’clock newscast, a CNN senior political analyst remarked that Israel said war with Iran was inevitable. Again, no mention of the threatened attack. The threat was made by a deputy prime minister; should his threat be attributed to the government?

Two nights later, people listening to CNN’s 10 o’clock newscast of Sunday, June 8, were subjected to the time-twisting, either deliberate time-twisting or unintentional time-twisting—if there is such a thing.

Ten minutes after the anchor Rick Sanchez’s jarring opening, he acknowledged, perhaps inadvertently, that the threat about an attack on Iran wasn’t made that night. He said: “It’s an ominous threat by an Israeli official about attacking Iran…. [He] sent shockwaves through world markets the other day.” The other day. Hmm.

Time-twisters, wherever they work, should know that the facts may eventually come to light. Truth will out–sometimes.

© Mervin Block 2008

Mervin offers more writing tips at mervinblock.com. And still more in one of his books, Broadcast Newswriting: The RTNDA Reference Guide. His Writing Broadcast News—Shorter, Sharper, Stronger is temporarily unavailable.