Sample 1: “By whatever name you may choose to call it, Providing Early Attention for Cervical Cancers Everywhere or P.E.A.C.E Campaign, as the pet project has been christened, what was on the mind of hundreds of women, children and men at the Holy Habitation Auditorium of the Redeemed Evangelical Mission, TREM, International Headquarters, along Gbagada Express Way, Lagos for the free Medical Fair organized by Women of Global Impact, WGI, in collaboration with the Lagos State Ministry of Women Affairs, on this particular day, was to be among the beneficiaries of the Fair which offered free screening for breast and cervical cancer, free medical consultation, free drugs, body mass index, BMI, blood sugar test, blood pressure test, health talk, free eye examination treatment and general medical treatment.
“Before now, many of the beneficiaries, mostly widows, orphans and indigent, who thronged the arena, must had waited patiently for a day this which finally landed at their door steps stress free. In an economy with increasing poverty, unemployment and sundry socioeconomic challenges, with no steady income to contend with the rising incidences of the burden of diseases such as cancer, organising free Medical Fair for vulnerable people, particularly children…
“PEACE campaign is also out discourage and Christians to do away of rejecting medical situation because knowing that you have a disease does not bring death…The mission is to reduce maternal mortality rate and to positively affect and torch the lives of women in particular for the better…She called on government to invest more resources into health…(Saved from Cancer, the Sunday Vanguard, August 11, 2013)
The very first paragraph of the report raises a fundamental question about the training of the reporter. The reporter has offered us a one-sentence paragraph made up of (now hold your breath) one hundred and twenty-five words! The reader has to plough laboriously through the tortuous, long-winded structure. He would need two or three glasses of water as he sweats breathlessly through the complicated and confusing paragraph.
Here is the reporter’s paragraph: “By whatever name you may choose to call it, Providing Early Attention for Cervical Cancers Everywhere or P.E.A.C.E Campaign, as the pet project has been christened, what was on the mind of hundreds of women, children and men at the Holy Habitation Auditorium of the Redeemed Evangelical Mission, TREM, International Headquarters, along Gbagada Express Way, Lagos for the free Medical Fair organized by Women of Global Impact, WGI, in collaboration with the Lagos State Ministry of Women Affairs, on this particular day, was to be among the beneficiaries of the Fair which offered free screening for breast and cervical cancer, free medical consultation, free drugs, body mass index, BMI, blood sugar test, blood pressure test, health talk, free eye examination treatment and general medical treatment.”
For Christ’s sake, how can this heavy going piece, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify as a reportorial sentence? The style certainly is inconsistent with the principle of journalism. The hallmarks of reportorial language and style are clarity, simplicity, and lucidity. In aid of these, the reports are usually organized into short, usually one-sentence paragraphs—units easily digestible without strenuous mental efforts. Reading a report should not be like reading Wole Soyinka’s more difficult essays, with their rare words, convoluted sentences, and multilayered semantic evocations. Reading reports should be a relaxed and enjoyable exercise.
As for this unwieldy sentence, we can chop it into three or more sentences in addition to weeding out some redundant words. There are in fact too many unnecessary words in the paragraph. Here are the proposed sentences: “Hundreds of children, women and a few men recently received free medical care at a programme tagged Providing Early Attention for Cervical Cancers Everywhere or P.E.A.C.E. The benefits received included free screening for breast and cervical cancer, free medical consultation, free drugs, body mass index, BMI, blood sugar test, blood pressure test, health talk, free eye examination and treatment, and general medical treatment. Held at the Holy Habitation Auditorium of the Redeemed Evangelical Mission, TREM, International Headquarters, Lagos, the free Medical Fair was organized by Women of Global Impact, WGI, in collaboration with the Lagos State Ministry of Women Affairs.”
Those familiar with this column do know that there is nothing magisterial about our proposals. There are of course several alternative ways of presenting the paragraph. I am even certain that there are more effective ways of presenting it, provided we are prepared to engage in serious thinking, and humble and realistic enough to discard the drafts considered weak or ineffective.
Next, we consider the phrase, “many of the beneficiaries, mostly widows, orphans and indigent, who thronged the arena…” Please note these three words in that phrase: widows, orphans, indigent. The first two words have two things in common: They are both nouns and in their plural forms. The third word, indigent, is odd in that it is an adjective, and has no chance of having a plural form; for it is not in the nature of adjectives to be in plural forms, not at least in the sense of having a final –s that marks plurality in English. I have this suspicion that a noun which the adjective indigent is meant to modify has been carelessly left out. I do hope that this indeed is the case as the alternative would be too unpleasant to contemplate: That the choice, grammatically atrocious as it is, is a reflection of the reporter’s level of competence. Let this not be so oh God!
Now this: “PEACE campaign is also out to discourage and encourage Christians to do away of rejecting medical situation because knowing that you have a disease does not bring death.” First, we note the segment, “to discourage and encourage Christians.” In what possible situation or on what possible issue can Christians be discouraged and encouraged simultaneously? Admittedly, this may not be impossible to imagine, but journalistic reports are not the kind of communication in which you leave anything to the imagination. Ambiguous and paradoxical situations and issues may be reported, but the sense in which they are ambiguous or paradoxical must be clearly spelt out in the report. Regrettably, we have no benefit of such explicitness in the report under consideration. This accounts in part for the fundamental weakness of this report.
Perhaps worse than that is the segment: “to do away of rejecting medical situation.” No doubt, the expression, “do away of rejecting” is defective, but in what sense is it? The idiomatic character of the supposed idiom seems to be compromised by the choice of the particle of, following the word away directly. The position occupied by that particle actually belongs to the particle with. You do away with things.
Having advised ourselves to take “to do away with” as the appropriate idiom, we now have: “do away with rejecting medical situation.” Even this is awkward. Do away with rejecting? We shall return to this shortly.
And this: “medical situation.” Poor expression! The word situation should be replaced with the word condition. We are now in a position to revise the entire structure: “PEACE campaign is out to encourage Christians to accept their medical condition…”
There is another terrible error which I have elected to believe is a typo. Yes, a typo. Or could it be otherwise? I banish the thought. Get thee behind me, Satan! Here is the error: “must had waited patiently.” This is the correct version: “must have waited patiently.” Please note that the form had has been replaced with have. Any explanation on this? Sorry, none today!
Next, we note the word torch which occurs in the following context: “The mission is to reduce maternal mortality rate and to positively affect and torch the lives of women in particular for the better…” There is a case of mistaken identity involving the words torch and touch. The wrong choice would seem to have been motivated by confusion at the level pronunciation. The words torch and touch are certainly pronounced differently, and the first step towards overcoming the problem of mistaken identity is to learn to pronounce each of them accurately.
Now what is the difference between touch and torch? To touch something is to let your hand be in contact with it. When two things touch each other, they are in contact with each other. The word can be used as a noun. In addition, it can be used figuratively. Please read the following sentences: 1) The woman with an issue of blood touched the hem of the garment of Jesus. 2) The lady alleged that the man touched her indecently. 3) The baby cries hysterically any time a stranger touches her. 4) Don’t let those flies touch your food. 5) We were crammed into the bus such that our legs were touching each other’s. 6) Her hair was so long that it was touching her shoulders. 7) I was deeply touched by her piety. 8) His humility was touching. 9) There is a professional touch in the painting. 10) The approach is out of touch with reality. 11) Are you in touch with your former husband? 12) We were in touch for almost ten years after graduation. 13) The government’s policies and actions are touching people’s lives positively.
A torch (wrongly called torchlight by some Nigerians) is a portable light-producing device powered by batteries or recharged with electricity: 1) Take your torch with you any time you are going out at night. 2) It is impolite to shine your torch into the eyes of passersby. 3) The illumination was provided by torchlight. 4) Torches are useless without batteries. 5) My torch uses four batteries.
To torch a thing is to deliberately set fire to it: 1) The man was accused of torching his wife’s property. 2) Students were on the rampage, torching cars and buildings. 3) The Boko Haram insurgents killed scores of people and torched almost all the houses in the town. 4) The government has no plan to compensate the people whose houses were torched during the riots. 5) Although many cars were torched, no life was lost.
Finally this: “She called on government to invest more resources into health…” We note the relationship between the verb invest and the particle into. The appropriate particle is in and not into. You invest in…
READ ALSO: Fair, Fare, Fear
