Daily Times

Rupert Murdoch declared his testimony before the House of Commons Select Committee as the most humble day of his life. He then reached inside of his ego to pull out a CEO who wants to cleanse the media temple of a phone hacking scandal. His son James gave his testimony like an empire scion in danger of losing the combination to the family vault. Murdoch-the-younger had the suspicious demeanour of having been coached by a team of lawyers proficient in developing public scripts to maximise damage control. His pandering and consistent responses to accusations started with an expressed willingness to answer questions. But his malleable eagerness to tell the truth was dogged by a syndromic “no recollection” dementia. His squared lips and toothy smile gave the texture of legal silk. Unfortunately, he did not always pull off the look of supreme confidence. He looked quite ready for a taxidermy consult by the end of the blistering committee session. James and his father seemed absolutely post-mortem towards the end. A bit of comic relief was provided by the pie-throwing event. This genuine performance given by Wendi Murdoch showed a crouching tigress quickly pouncing and coming to the aid of her husband. Two former wives have also felt the claws of the current Mrs Murdoch. When a man dallies with a woman greater than three decades his junior, the poor wife of his youth does not stand a chance. Mrs Murdoch understands the powerful nature of how the elixir of youth affects a middle-aged man.

Rebekah Brooks stated that she never bribed a police officer. I believe her. She never pressed a Euro into a sweaty palm. Ms Brooks’ testimony stands as a complete truth in itself. But it may be part of a greater corporate composite regarding ethical behaviour. Corporate bribery requires discretion and distance. It is a task undertaken by underlings.

See how easy it is to write a scandal piece? Tabloid news is the gutter of journalism where the rats frolic amidst the sewage. Sensationalistic journalism is within the reach of anyone with a high school education and a media platform. Editorial opinion and commentary are more difficult ventures. But words contain sufficient beauty, power and mystery to convey a story without sleuthing into voice mail and e-mail traffic.

Over the years, my own style of writing has moved forward with a somewhat innate understanding of ‘the rules of one’ for commentary journalism. Let me share a few guidelines for writing.

Bring one primary topic to the table. Columns range from 850-1,000 words. So there is little room to develop more than one topic at a time. If a writer chooses Indo-Pak relations, these nations become the frame for painting the word picture. Should the writer then spin the globe and include China, Iran and the US within the frame of thought, the reader now feels like part of a round table discussion. Simply put, commentary presents adjunct thoughts to the greater argument. When readers complain about lack of depth, they are correct. One thousand words is a skeletal representation at best.

Journalists keep one audience in mind. A writer for a gas and oil publication and a writer for a foreign affairs periodical court different audiences. I seek an intelligent audience and write for the educated reader. If you gravitate towards magazines with big pictures and clipped thoughts, your joy is entertainment and not commentary. That is fine. I read entertainment magazines in the grocery queue. It reminds me that God is not only benevolent towards the unworthy but that He probably has a sense of humour too.

A good wordsmith will move commentary to an even higher level by encrypting one thought to provide an ‘Aha!’ moment for the observant reader. Encryption of text is merely the use of culturally relevant signals and symbols, words with multiple meanings, or use of an obscure reference that catches the reader by surprise. My last column included a cryptographic clue. A culturally relevant signal is already embedded within this text.

Lest the above paragraph cause the reader to make a mad dash to the nearest bookstore for an eight-pound English dictionary, do not panic. Communication is not based on language fluency, which uses the big words few of us understand. Communication is meant to convey word pictures, which make principles, concepts and ideas easier to grasp. A two-year-old child understands the simple word ‘no’. It communicates the concept of boundary or limitation. It is a two-letter word with multiple applications.

Beyond encryption, a good journalist will always keep one secret. This can be the one piece of information that is not shared with the audience. It can be the critical, verifiable fact that spurred the journalist to choose a topic and it can be based on a primary witness to events. Betrayal of a source mars the profession and is ethically repugnant. So we keep our little secrets.

Commentary leaves one unanswered question. It is important for journalists to lead but not necessarily conclude. When writing political commentary, it is easy to fall into political dogma, which denies the reflective nature of man. Journalism is meant to be a humanising experience.

Journalists write with one passion. It is the passion to seek the truth. They present their opinion without feeling the need to mention the counter-argument for ‘balance’. Let others deconstruct your argument and present their own unique view. Freedom of expression sorts everything out in the end. So we write with conviction. We express our thoughts with passion. We trust others to sift our thoughts and carefully consider our stance. It is perfectly fine to conclude a commentary with a strong statement of personal belief. But the final task before submitting a column is to apply an airbrush and soften the features of what is written. There is no need to bully people or whip an audience into a frenzy. It is better to make new friends than a long line of enemies.

The writer is a freelance columnist. She can be reached at tammyswof@msn.com