Deciphering the news

I was looking over USA Today today, the paper edition, and noticed a small item on page 3A under “On deadline: What others are reporting.” It was a brief wire report with the header “N.J. town revises immigration law,” and I’m always interested in that subject, so I read it.

I’m also always interested in how the media write and report, so I share it with you. Couldn’t find it at all online at the site that supposedly has “more on this and other news stories,” but here’s what the print version says:

A committee in Riverside, N.J., has rejected a call from Mayor Charles Hilton to kill an ordinance that threatens fines of up to $2,000 for landlords who knowingly house illegal immigrants and employers who knowingly hire them, the Courier Post of Cherry Hill reports.

What? When a sentence is that convoluted with so many negatives that you have to unravel them to understand it, that’s not good writing or clear reporting. But it happens all the time in the news, especially ‘on deadline.’

So this committee “rejected a call” to “kill an ordinance” that “threatens fines” for landlords who house and employers who hire illegal immigrants. Let’s see, that’s….at least three negatives, maybe four. 

Let’s proceed…

The ordinance, which drew national attention when approved in July, is not yet being enforced, the newpaper reports. A Latino clergy group filed a federal lawsuit against the measure in August, and some local businesses have sued in state court, saying it’s discriminatory, vague and unfair to local merchants.

Talk about vague…. Somebody was really on deadline with this story.

Hilton, a Republican who was defeated by a Democrat Nov. 7, has been a big supporter of the ordinance but said it would be “morally and ethically wrong to ignore the views of the voters,” the paper reported.

The committee did change some language to clarify that the law would not restrict immigrant access to emergency care or legal assistance.

At least the committee did something to clarify the language.

By the way, what committee was this?