Our columnists should stop wasting their readers’ time by sparing us the lengthy introductions they insist on writing whenever they comment on any issue. They should instead focus on the subject by going straight to the point they want to make. In most cases the introductions take up a fourth or even a third of the entire text of the article. And even worse, the entire introduction itself is often quoted from previously published articles. Our newspapers are full of examples which clearly show us that these writers are wasting our time. While much of the article may be consumed by unnecessary observations and asides, only a few lines are devoted to the real subject. Why don’t these writers develop their own style which would make them different from others? If they did so, they would be able to attract readers instead of simply filling a space by repeating what has already been said.
Are these columnists guilty of underestimating their readers or does this type of writing really reflect the public taste? Some columnists begin their articles by saying something along these lines: “I tried to write something but I couldn’t. I waited and waited and then an idea struck me. I grabbed a pen, some paper and tried to write it down but again I couldn’t. I went out, took a taxi and rode around town in search of an idea.” Now is any person writing such absurdities worthy of being considered a serious 21st-century newspaper columnist? Can’t our papers survive without this kind of useless padding? Columnists should realize that a newspaper is meant to be read and that readers are on the lookout for something worth their time to read and something that is free of extraneous verbosity.
16 July 2002
