Harry Potter Baby Mama?

Ok I'm well aware that is is not an assignment, but I saw this and had to comment on it. Looking at the Sunday Post Secret postcards I came across a Harry Potter one. At first glance I assumed it would be a comment on somebodies secret attraction to Ron Weasley despite a deep seated hate for gingers or something. However, the secret is actually much more interesting than that.

Photos of several Harry Potter male leads are shown accompanied with a note that states, "One of these men is the father of one of the most amazing little girls in the world. He's never met her. He never will. He probably can't even remember my name."

Maybe I'm just Pott-ing out but in light of the latest premiere and the gravity of these people's fame I feel like I've just stumbled on something about to be discovered. Could this post card be legitimate? For the most part the Harry Potter crew--Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint in particular have pretty clean cut images. On the other hand they also have a multitude of adoring fans, and understandably put an emphasis on "private" in their private lives.

The post card--as all the post cards sent to Post Secret--is anonymous, which calls into question first how seriously it can really be taken, and secondly, why bother making a false story if it entirely anonymous? My point is obviously there is a problem with this source, but at the same time it doesn't follow the traditional pattern of lying for the sake of attention, particularly since it was never guaranteed to be posted by the regulators of Post Secret in the first place. If the story is false why be anonymous or just not post it in a traditional blog or gossip space? 

I actually hope something happens with this card in the media--after all if I'm curious as to whats going on, its a safe bet the other 500 thousand Harry Potter fans would be too.

Adjecctives make idiots

Adjectives pose a constant temptation in writing pieces--they can add color, excitement, emotion, not to mention take up space when those pesky facts are in low supply. The problem with adjectives is they tend to downgrade the quality of the writing, and as Carole Rich points out, "run the risk of inserting your opinions in the story" (Writing and Reporting News 192). Obviously news should be impartial, and whether intended or not adjectives are strong elements in writing--they can easily define a character or event one way or another. The devil's in the details, which for writers--and insults--means adjectives.

Just as important, adjectives can distract from the overall point of the piece. As Norman Miller so eloquently put it, "put 20 adjectives before a noun and no one will know you are describing a turd."(192)

Well said sir, well said.

Take in point the Washington Post piece, The Engine of Change . The actual story focuses on the demographics and economic struggles of one community as it faces the presidential election. The adjectives paint a very different story.

The setting is a "great old railroad and factory town". Okay so we're visiting the urban equivalent of Mulberry.

Populace is described as "excited, scared, "bitter"...hard-luck and high-pride[d]." The psychiatrist strokes his beard thoughtfully and scibbles notes at the question's response--how does that make you feel? 
Do the people sound overburdened? Its okay, according to the reporter the community is "plucky...Never fear!" Throw in a St. Bernard and a blonde kid and we have a t.v Disney movie.

Between the adjective binge and bizarre commentary on the part of the reporter--"Chin up!"--the actual story is lost. The reader is so distracted by the writing the facts go unnoticed and fade into the background. It was not until the second half of the piece that the actual story started coming out and the ridiculous word choice and comments stopped.

Adjectives are great, but at what cost? Try decent writing.