Author: Jim Bowman

Jim Bowman covered religion 1968-78 for the Chicago Daily News, since then has written books, articles, etc., mostly on corporate history but also on religion (Company Man: My Jesuit Life, 1950-1968), and more recently on politics (Illinois Blues: How the Ruling Party Talks to Voters -- Lulu.com, Kindle). Longtime Oak Park, Illinois, resident, he lives now on Chicago's North Side, where four of his and Winnie's six children live close by.

Another medical research prof with secret ties to China — “indicted for allegedly lying” etc. Why not “on a charge of”?

Finally dawns on me. That damn “allegedly” used in news accounts so as not to pre-judge the individual or prejudice the case? As in this story?

Just a week after Harvard University chemistry chairman Charles Lieber was indicted for allegedly lying about his ties to China, specifically a technology university in the heart of coronavirus hub city Wuhan, court records allege that another professor lied about ties to China.

Problem is, the word, here an adverb, goes too far, or doesn’t say enough. There had to be more than something being alleged, of course, as indeed there was.

Instead say this: indicted “on charges of” or “on the charge of” whatever. It’s more accurate and not much longer.

Think about it, all you copy editors out there.

via Another medical research prof with secret ties to China

The Snub of the Nation Speech?

Did he or didn’t he? Same for her. Maybe.

President Trump, in our opinion, made a mistake at the State of the Union speech if his failure to shake Speaker Pelosi’s hand was intended as a snub. She made a mistake, in our view, if she intended an insult by tearing her copy of his speech at the end of Congress’ joint session. Both gestures put a slight damper on what was otherwise a rousing evening calculated to point our country toward November.

Opportunity lost. But intentions?

We use the word “if” above because, having watched the clip a dozen times, we can’t gain a clear view of whether Mr. Trump intended to snub the Speaker at the start of the speech. He had plenty of cause to, we’ll grant. Mrs. Pelosi has been calling him a criminal. She handed up against him charges of which the Senate is likely to acquit him. If he resents the Speaker, it would be reasonable enough.

Etc. A wonderful he-said-she-said situation, a mystery for the ages. (One CBS announcer said one thing, another “interjected” pronto to say another. Hmm.)