11–20 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refuse to believe this wasn't just a way to add drama/tension. You can't work in IT and actually believe this.
Well, he was afraid he was going to be murdered by criminals. Under those circumstances even slight suspicion would be terrifying.
The radio version: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/07/749135286/episode-931-the-it-... The climax of this story involves the belief that “Linux servers don’t just crash”.
>WARNER: Joe Healy is sitting in this conference room with Felipe, the IT guy in his buttoned-up shirt. >HEALY: He's a physically little guy... >WARNER: He's 5-foot-4. >HEALY: ...And not overly muscular. Man, Planet Money's constant interruptions and hacked-apart quotations are just as jarring to read as they are to listen to. It's entirely possible to transition your narrative structure between accessible exposition…
In the example you give, I think the interjection is fine. Healy, the U.S. postal inspector, gives a vague description of Felipe – "a physically little guy" – and the reporter interjects with actual specifics. I don't think the flow would be noticeably better if this was the edited cut:
> HEALY: He's a physically little guy...And not overly muscular
> NPR: Felipe's actually 5-foot-4
The victims didn't come forward because they felt so ashamed about falling for the con. This is such an interesting essential part of scams. I guess it's a part of human nature. I remember tracking down a phone scam that caught my grandmother once (based out of Montreal) and I eventually got to a point where I discovered that my grandmother had provided a verbal consent over the phone that had kept it just this side…
It's bad enough that banks and such are starting to set up arrangements where (adult) kids can intervene to prevent their parents from losing all their savings this way.
>WARNER: Joe Healy is sitting in this conference room with Felipe, the IT guy in his buttoned-up shirt. >HEALY: He's a physically little guy... >WARNER: He's 5-foot-4. >HEALY: ...And not overly muscular. Man, Planet Money's constant interruptions and hacked-apart quotations are just as jarring to read as they are to listen to. It's entirely possible to transition your narrative structure between accessible exposition…
I generally like Planet Money's style, in which the reporter/correspondent will do a majority of the narration, paraphrasing and interjecting when the original speaker isn't saying something particularly notable. Sometimes this is just necessary, interviewees don't always speak in complete and or/concise fashion, especially when doing boilerplate description. In the example you give, I think the interjection is fine.…
The radio version: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/07/749135286/episode-931-the-it-... The climax of this story involves the belief that “Linux servers don’t just crash”.
I refuse to believe this wasn't just a way to add drama/tension. You can't work in IT and actually believe this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally like Planet Money's style, in which the reporter/correspondent will do a majority of the narration, paraphrasing and interjecting when the original speaker isn't saying something particularly notable. Sometimes this is just necessary, interviewees don't always speak in complete and or/concise fashion, especially when doing boilerplate description. In the example you give, I think the interjection is fine.…
If it's unnatural to include before or after, that's because it's not that relevant to the story in the first place. It's enough to be able to picture that his risk is compounded by a physical disadvantage, we don't need to know his exact dimensions if that data isn't worth bringing up afterward. And if it is that important, the middle of someone else's sentence is the most flow-breaking place you could possibly put…
People who brazenly scam senior citizens like this should get lethal injection. I'm not even being facetious. If we assign this penalty for murdering one person, why not for destroying the lives of thousands of vulnerable people?