5 ms·

A story by "Reuters staff" starts: "Denmark said". It's like an AI wrote it and doesn't know countries don't talk. Or just bad writing.

samatman 6y ago
Is styling communications from a government in that fashion really surprising to you? Strikes me as fairly normal, though I'm not motivated to go searching for examples. Does read a bit as a holdover from the monarchical custom of referring to the sovereign by the name of the country.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Reuters is also British. They aren't following US style guides.
  - TurkTurkleton 6y ago
    Such synecdoche is common in headlines on both sides of the pond.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  I wouldn't call it surprising, but I would call it lazy reporting and far less useful than sharing specifically who said it.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Nobody specifically said it. As it says two (short) paragraphs later, it's a government plan. Authorship is by some ad hoc committee writing on behalf of the government as a whole. Its publication has the endorsement of the chief executive, but they may not have read it or even know about it. It may have been done by a trusted assistant (cabinet member or other high-level functionary) entrusted with the power to speak on behalf of the executive. In this case, that's Climate Minister Dan Joergensen, quoted in the fourth paragraph, though he likely didn't have a hand in writing it. The important part is that it's a plan that the plan is endorsed by the government as a whole, who will act on it. That's the info that needed to be in the lede. If you have concerns that would be taken up by the specific people, you need to read the whole article first.
- aeternum 6y ago
  It's worthy of criticism. After all, many people are saying this style of communication will be the downfall of society. Experts agree.
  - jayparth 6y ago
    What style of communication are you referring to? Why would it be the downfall of society? Who are these experts? Your comment makes me curious and I want to know more.
justin66 6y ago
If reading on mobile, you would have needed to swipe down at most twice to find a name taking ownership of the government's statement. Nothing about it seems difficult.
d8dbd8djd 6y ago
Your comment is like if a stupid person wanted to pretend to be a smart person and didn't know how fucking stupid they sound.
jfengel 6y ago
It's understood to mean "the Danish government". Two paragraphs later, it says, "In a climate plan published on Tuesday, the government estimated...". There's no person to attribute it to. They could have added "... according to a government plan" to the first paragraph, but that's adding several words to a lede that's supposed to be concise and up front. It's sometimes called the "inverted pyramid"[1], though I find that a little odd since the width of the triangle refers to the importance of the words rather than the brevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

samatman 6y ago

Is styling communications from a government in that fashion really surprising to you? Strikes me as fairly normal, though I'm not motivated to go searching for examples. Does read a bit as a holdover from the monarchical custom of referring to the sovereign by the name of the country.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Reuters is also British. They aren't following US style guides.
- TurkTurkleton 6y ago
  Such synecdoche is common in headlines on both sides of the pond.
mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
I wouldn't call it surprising, but I would call it lazy reporting and far less useful than sharing specifically who said it.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Nobody specifically said it. As it says two (short) paragraphs later, it's a government plan. Authorship is by some ad hoc committee writing on behalf of the government as a whole. Its publication has the endorsement of the chief executive, but they may not have read it or even know about it. It may have been done by a trusted assistant (cabinet member or other high-level functionary) entrusted with the power to speak on behalf of the executive. In this case, that's Climate Minister Dan Joergensen, quoted in the fourth paragraph, though he likely didn't have a hand in writing it. The important part is that it's a plan that the plan is endorsed by the government as a whole, who will act on it. That's the info that needed to be in the lede. If you have concerns that would be taken up by the specific people, you need to read the whole article first.
aeternum 6y ago
It's worthy of criticism. After all, many people are saying this style of communication will be the downfall of society. Experts agree.
- jayparth 6y ago
  What style of communication are you referring to? Why would it be the downfall of society? Who are these experts? Your comment makes me curious and I want to know more.

justin66 6y ago

If reading on mobile, you would have needed to swipe down at most twice to find a name taking ownership of the government's statement. Nothing about it seems difficult.

d8dbd8djd 6y ago

Your comment is like if a stupid person wanted to pretend to be a smart person and didn't know how fucking stupid they sound.

jfengel 6y ago

It's understood to mean "the Danish government". Two paragraphs later, it says, "In a climate plan published on Tuesday, the government estimated...". There's no person to attribute it to. They could have added "... according to a government plan" to the first paragraph, but that's adding several words to a lede that's supposed to be concise and up front. It's sometimes called the "inverted pyramid"[1], though I find that a little odd since the width of the triangle refers to the importance of the words rather than the brevity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)