Since we’ve just looked at an example of court reporting, I’d like to share a court story that was published recently in an English newspaper in
(Story background: A political aide was summoned to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office on July 15 last year to be questioned over the irregular disbursement of the state funds. He was found dead on the fifth floor service corridor of the building the next day. Did he commit suicide? Or was it a homicide? An inquest is taking place to find out the cause of his death.)
This story is quite straightforward and dull, if compared with the example we read in class. The journalist plainly reported the conversation between the counsel and the forensic pathologist.
There are two arresting paragraphs in this story (because of the content, not the writing style):
1. When Abdul Razak asked Dr Pornthip if, as an expert witness, she had to be fair and not take sides, she replied that she worked for the rights of the dead and not for the Selangor Government or for anyone else.
2. But when Abdul Razak asked Dr Pornthip if she had ever jumped out of a window, council representing the Selangor Government Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said: “With questions like these, we would all want to jump out.”
I felt that these two quotes would make pretty strong and attention-grabbing leads, but the journalist had chosen a safe one. However, if the journalist had started off the story with either of these, it would have set a certain direction or tone, resulting in a biased report.
For instance, if he had chosen the first quote, he would somehow make Dr Pornthip appear heroic. If the second quote was used, the readers might straightaway label Abdul Razak as “unreasonable and insensible”.
In contrast to this story, an online news portal provided a more interesting coverage, using adjectives and adding in some descriptions of what happened in the court.
Examples:
1. “You have to understand. I work for the rights of the dead, not the Selangor government,” she told the Coroner’s Court, drawing applause from a packed gallery, after Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) lawyer Datuk Abdul Razak Musa had questioned her qualification.
2. After telling Abdul Razak that she was working for the rights of the dead, she added that “my objective is to help the dead.” Undaunted, Abdul Razak asked the Thai pathologist why she did not consider what transpired the night before Teoh was found dead.
3. At one point, Dr Pornthip even asked Abdul Razak if was indeed a lawyer, drawing more laughter from the gallery. Abdul Razak said he had been a lawyer for 24 years. In what became a battle of wits, Abdul Razak also suggested that Dr Pornthip kept changing her position and “the goalpost.”
Its lead is also very different from the one in the first story:
As Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand faced relentless questions today about her qualifications and her testimony, the Thai forensic expert delivered what could perhaps be the line that fortifies her credibility as an expert witness in the Teoh Beng Hock inquest.
It is also interesting to note that the earlier story came with a headline of "MACC and pathologist trade barbs" (safe) while the second story had "Pornthip: I work for rights of the dead, not Selangor government" (attention-grabbing) as its headline.
Many readers will no doubt prefer to read the second story (including myself), even though it might not be totally objective in the eyes of journalists (honestly, the readers don't care about this point). So, I guess we have to ask ourselves what we want to achieve - an engaging story that would attract the readers, or a plain story that informs the readers on what happened and let them make their own judgement.
How do we strike a balance in between?
No comments:
Post a Comment