As you know it, journalists do not create information. They gather it. And a significant portion of every news story is dedicated to revealing the sources of information on which the story is based. If Manmohan Singh unexpectedly resigns as P.M., then the information must be attributed to a reliable source: the P.M. himself, the president, a Congress secretary, the spokesperson, or even an unnamed administrative official. In an abstract sense, news sources allow the audience to verify statements in a news story. They imply the objectivity and authenticity of the news.
What is true in print is doubly important in broadcasting. Newspaper stories are printed in black and white, but radio news is communicated using a human voice. All too easily a listener can take exception to a statement voiced by the news- caster. Unless that statement is attributed to a specific source, the listener’s irritation or skepticism about the news may seep into his or her evaluation of the anchor’s credibility. Incontrovertible facts do not need attribution nor, ironically, do universally held prejudices, but, if there is a glimmer of doubt, partisanship, subjectivity, or prophecy in a statement, then it needs an attribution. Otherwise, someone in the audience will become upset at the anchor for injecting personal opinions into the news.
The one problem with attributions is that they make sentences more complex. They add an extra layer of packaging. Print journalists prefer attributions at the end: “The warehouse fire broke out in a first floor office and spread from there, said arson investigators.” Broadcast journalists demand that they be placed at the beginning: “Arson investigators say the fire broke out in a first floor office and spread from there.” Both have good reasons.
Print journalists, who are especially sensitive to grammatical forms, want the topic of the sentence-”the warehouse fire”-and the grammatical subject of the sentence to be one and the same. That focuses reader attention.
Broadcast journalists, however, have three major reasons for ignoring this rule. The first is the one just alluded to. Attributions remind the audience that the surprising, incredible, or controversial assertions made by the newscaster are not his or hers but are those of other authorities or interested parties. Second attributions at the end of sentences are not the conversational norm. When talking with friends, we are more likely to place the source of information if given at the beginning of a statement: “My doctor says smoking will cut three years off my life.” And. Finally because the validity of an assertion may be highly dependent on the source of information, it can be misleading to withhold that element until the end of the sentence. For example if the assertion is that the president cannot avoid raising taxes to reduce the budget deficit the listener’s evaluation will be substantially different depending on whether the statement is attributed to the president. A top assistant or a leader of the opposition party. Furthermore to make a controversial or incredible assertion and then withhold the source of information until the end of the sentence forces the listener to reprocess the assertion within its new context. While newspaper readers can stop processing the text at any time, broadcast listeners must ignore what’s next if they want to reconcile second thoughts engendered by a questionable source.
