- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It's hard to know where to start critiquing this article, but I'll single out just a few sentences:
A recent example occurred on Oct. 21 with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' confirmation contract. At approximately 8:30 that morning, traders monitoring the Harriet Miers confirmation process began aggressively selling contracts betting against her confirmation -- dropping her stock price 42 points in early trading. The following Thursday, Miers withdrew her nomination from the high court.
The extract above relates several facts but NO knowledge. The author uses 'Oct. 21' and then 'the following Thursday'. How long a time period is that? One day or seven? Why should I have to refer to my calendar while reading this article? Surely, the author knows how many days.
Then the author says, "...dropping her stock price 42 points...." It dropped from where? If the price fell from 100 points to 58, I'm unimpressed because the 'market' still thought she'd be confirmed. If the price fell from 42 to zero, I'm awed. Which should I be, unimpressed, awed, or something in between?
Come on editors, there's to your job than checking spelling, grammar, and 'flow'. Here's a hint -- Content, content, content.
