Trib, in a page one story about State’s Atty. Alvarez losing first a big case and then her cool when discussing with reporters, has this about jurors’ willingness to be quizzed:

While a media liaison for Judge Thaddeus Wilson had promised to release the names of jurors after the verdict, the judge instead said he sealed the names at the request of jurors.

While the press rep said jurors would be present, the judge said it wouldn’t happen. Simultaneously? No, because the writer uses “while” as “although,” which is common enough but ill-advised. What do you say when “while” means “at the same time as”? You say “while,” letting the reader puzzle out what you mean.

Bad! It slows the reader down and softens the impact of contrast. It’s a shrinking from the definite and precise. Say instead the judge’s rep said jurors would be available, but the judge [later?] said they wouldn’t, at their request. It’s not a mystery novel you are writing, but a news story.

Point: Don’t disguise or apologize for contrast, as if afraid to be dramatic. Make it clear.

Like Obama about abortion, this info is above State’s spokesman’s pay grade:

I dont have his personal biography in front of me, but what I will convey is as Ive said before judging somebody’s effectiveness, or what role theyll play, or how strong of an Ambassador theyll be, you cant do until they spend some time working on the job in the country, the State Department responded.

It’s also like Nancy Pelosi’s pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in the bill.

And Argentina is close to Catholic and other hearts these days because it’s where Pope Francis came from. Right?

Jerry Seinfeld, asked why only white males in his web series “ Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,”:

“Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested,” Seinfeld [said].

“I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that. But everyone else is kind of, with their little calculating – is this the exact right mix?” Seinfeld said. “To me it’s anti-comedy. It’s more about PC-nonsense than ‘are you making us laugh or not?’”

Further:

“Take a look over here, Peter. What do you see?” Seinfeld said [to the questioner], scanning the audience. “A lot of whiteys! What is going on here? This really pisses me off.”

“People think it’s the census or something? I mean, this has got to represent the actual pie chart of America? Who cares?”

I don’t.

Do they doze at the Chi Trib copy desk when preparing hard copy? Consider today’s headline “Minimum Wage Debate: Economists mostly agree hike is good. Politicians do not” for a story by Gregory Karp that cites but does not interview two economists who don’t like the hike and interviews a labor specialist who thinks it’s good and mentions no politicians at all.

{On line it’s a different story: “Minimum-wage debate rages on. Consensus elusive, despite 75 years of experience, countless studies.” It’s the joy of digital: you get a second chance.)

The story itself remains suspect. It closes (you need a closer, do you not?) with the labor specialist, Robert Bruno, observing:

As the arguments on each side continue, fundamentally the minimum wage is a government regulation that attempts to fix a perceived inefficiency in the market by redistributing some wealth.

“The question is, is that good or bad?”

Not a bad question, but a better one is why Karp’s sleepy editors do not label his piece “analysis” rather than slap it on the front page, where news stories go.

Or an even better one is why Karp didn’t lead with his UIC labor expert as a sort of opinion piece and then go into the two economists’ research that concluded that “a rise in the minimum wage results in reduced employment among low-wage workers.”

Equal time for these two, David Neumark of U-Cal-Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve, would have helped. It might even have awakened the copy editors, saved them from false labeling the product.

On the other hand, the desk people might have gone all honest about it with something like “Labor expert likes hike. Two economists do not.”