AJC makes editing blunders

It didn’t take me long to realize that this article was an editing jackpot. This article is a mess. Although it’s interesting and somewhat newsworthy – the technical aspects of the article make it almost worth omitting – which is somewhat shocking to me for the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Beginning with the most obvious, and most relevant to class, the HEADLINE is not my favorite. I just feel like it’s awkward and hard to read. It’s technically correct, and it fits the purpose of the article – I just feel like it’s confusing and just not up to par.

In addition, I think this sentence in the third paragraph was extremely awkward – “He said he did not know to whom Richardson was referring.”

It literally forced me to stop reading and re-read the entire article from the beginning again – It was confusing, and just really awkward. This is where the article unraveled for me – and it’s a short article.

Also – and this could just be my personal preference – but I don’t understand why Perdue didn’t comment. I understand that he has a spokesperson – and that’s important – I just don’t understand why Perdue didn’t have anything to say. This isn’t necessarily the reporters fault – I just think it would have made the article better.

“Because he couldn’t legally officiate at the wedding, Perdue sort of co-presided along with a circuit court judge.” – sort of? Did he or didn’t he stand there with the circuit court judge? He just “sort of” presided? I feel like that sentence is way too conversational than the other parts of the article.

Lastly, I feel the last paragraph would’ve been better if the reporter had used a colon for the long list.

In my opinion, the article topic has relevance, and the length of the article is fitting, but the reporter’s awkward phrasing makes the article seem irrelevant and pointless because it’s hard to read.