Perspective

In the blog Common Sense Journalism, author Doug Fisher referred to an article written by Tim Radford: "25 Commandments for Journalism." These 25 commandments are really intriguing to me as an aspiring journalist, as they bring up points that I have learned about, points I hadn't considered, and points I wish major newspapers would adhere to. One of my favorites is number 5--

5. Here is a thing to carve in pokerwork and hang over your typewriter. "No one will ever complain because you have made something too easy to understand."

This calls for simplicity in journalism, and is very refreshing for someone like me, seeing as I often find myself lost when reading newspaper articles that attempt to include every detail and intricacy of a story. Radford certainly adheres to this principle throughout the writing of his 25 commandments, as he cleverly yet simply illustrates the points he wants to make. Another of the commandments that I really like is number 20--

20. English is better than Latin. You don't exterminate, you kill. You don't salivate, you drool. You don't conflagrate, you burn. Moses did not say to Pharaoh: "The consequence of non-release of one particular subject ethnic population could result ultimately in some kind of algal manifestation in the main river basin, with unforeseen outcomes for flora and fauna, not excluding consumer services." He said "the waters which are in the river ... shall be turned to blood, and the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink."

Radford makes a point without beating around the bush.

But the commandment that really strikes me and can be related to our current study of different perspectives and criticisms is number 9.

9. So if an issue is tangled like a plate of spaghetti, then regard your story as just one strand of spaghetti, carefully drawn from the whole. Ideally with the oil, garlic and tomato sauce adhering to it. The reader will be grateful for being given the simple part, not the complicated whole. That is because (a) the reader knows life is complicated, but is grateful to have at least one strand explained clearly, and (b) because nobody ever reads stories that say "What follows is inexplicably complicated ..."

I think that this doesn't just apply to journalism, but also explains why literary criticism exists or why people look at Hamlet and other works of Shakespeare's from different angles. Shakespeare's plays are so intricate and multifaceted, and a reader can often become lost in the word play and even the sometimes confusing plot lines. Just as journalists are instructed by Radford's commandments to clearly explain one side of a story, rather than trying to present a confusing and garbled account, so do literary critics attempt to explain a story through one lens, rather than trying to cover all possible interpretations of a story.

To use Radford's metaphor, it's much easier to eat one piece of spaghetti at a time, rather than trying to shove the whole plate in your mouth at once. This helps me understand the benefit of reading about different literary criticisms of Hamlet. Doing so will help me, as a reader, to put the pieces together in order to understand Hamlet, or any other piece, more easily. Next time I'm writing a news story, I'll keep this concept in mind, eager to give readers the ease of understanding that's presented when literary critics explain one strand of a story.